% Encoding: UTF-8


@article{adcockcollierMeasurementValidityShared2001,
  title = {Measurement {{Validity}}: {{A Shared Standard}} for {{Qualitative}} and {{Quantitative Research}}},
  shorttitle = {Measurement {{Validity}}},
  author = {Adcock, Robert and Collier, David},
  year = {2001},
  month = sep,
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  volume = {95},
  number = {3},
  pages = {529--546},
  issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
  doi = {10.1017/S0003055401003100},
  abstract = {Scholars routinely make claims that presuppose the validity of the observations and measurements that operationalize their concepts. Yet, despite recent advances in political science methods, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to measurement validity. We address this gap by exploring four themes. First, we seek to establish a shared framework that allows quantitative and qualitative scholars to assess more effectively, and communicate about, issues of valid measurement. Second, we underscore the need to draw a clear distinction between measurement issues and disputes about concepts. Third, we discuss the contextual specificity of measurement claims, exploring a variety of measurement strategies that seek to combine generality and validity by devoting greater attention to context. Fourth, we address the proliferation of terms for alternative measurement validation procedures and offer an account of the three main types of validation most relevant to political scientists.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {647 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/adcock_collier_2001_measurement_validity_-_a_shared_standard_for_qualitative_and_quantitative.pdf}
}

@unpublished{Ahmed2008,
	author = {Ahmed, Amel and Sil, Rudra},
	booktitle = {Russell The Journal Of The Bertrand Russell Archives},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Ahmed {\&} Sil 2008 multi-method logic.pdf:pdf},
	institution = {Political Methodology Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series},
	number = {November},
	title = {{The Logic(s) of Inquiry Reconsidering Multi-Method Approaches}},
	year = {2008}
}

@article{Ahmed2012,
	author = {Ahmed, Amel and Sil, Rudra},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Ahmed{\_}Sil{\_}12{\_}MMR.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	number = {4},
	pages = {935--953},
	title = {{When Multi-Method Research Subverts Methodological Pluralism - Or, Why We Still Need Single-Method Research}},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2012}
}

@Article{Ahram2013,
  Title                    = {{Concepts and Measurement in Multimethod Research}},
  Author                   = {Ahram, A. I.},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = dec,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {280--291},
  Volume                   = {66},

  Abstract                 = {Abstract This article argues that concept misformation and conceptual stretching undermine efforts to combine qualitative and quantitative methods in multimethod research (MMR). Two related problems result from the mismatch of qualitatively and quantitatively construed concepts. Mechanism muddling occurs when differences in the connotation of qualitatively and quantitatively construed concepts embed different causal properties into conceptual definitions. Conceptual slippage occurs when qualitatively and quantitatively construed concepts use incompatible nominal, ordinal, or radial scales. Instead of gaining leverage from the synthesis of large- and small-N analysis, these problems can push MMR in two diametrically opposed directions, emphasizing one methodological facet at the cost of the other},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/1065912911427453},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Ahram - 2011 - Concepts and Measurement in Multimethod Research.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1065-9129},
  Keywords                 = {1970,argues that in the,concept misformation in comparative,concepts,course of seek-,in the classic,measurement,multi-method research,politics,sartori},
  Url                      = {http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1065912911427453}
}

@article{Alamos-Concha-etal2021,
	abstract = {What is the most appropriate QCA solution type when engaging in a multimethod design that includes QCA and in-depth process-tracing (PT)? While either the intermediate or the parsimonious solution are generally favored in QCA-only studies, we identify important challenges that can emerge when selecting those solutions in a QCA-PT multimethod study. We particularly highlight the risk of mechanistic heterogeneity, omitted conditions, and draw the attention on the issue of generalization. We discuss each of these intertwined challenges in depth, and explain why the conservative solution is useful to consider in addressing them. We substantiate our arguments by drawing on a recently completed evaluation study that was commissioned by the Flemish ESF Agency in Belgium. In the study, we combined QCA and theory-guided in-depth process-tracing to uncover under what combinations of conditions (QCA) a training programme would lead to successful training transfer and how (PT) this happened in the successful cases. The article highlights the need to carefully consider the selection of solution types in any multimethod design comprising QCA.},
	author = {{\'{A}}lamos Concha, Priscilla and Pattyn, Val{\'{e}}rie and Rihoux, Beno{\^{i}}t and Schalembier, Benjamin and Beach, Derek and Cambr{\'{e}}, Bart},
	doi = {10.1007/s11135-021-01191-x},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/{\'{A}}lamos-Concha_etal_21_solution_types.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {0123456789},
	issn = {0033-5177},
	journal = {Quality {\&} Quantity},
	keywords = {Conservative solution,Mechanistic heterogeneity,Multimethod design,Process-Tracing,QCA,QCA solution type,conservative solution,mechanistic heterogeneity,multimethod design,process-tracing,qca,qca solution type},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	title = {{Conservative solutions for progress: on solution types when combining QCA with in-depth process-tracing}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01191-x},
	year = {2021}
}

@article{Arel-Bundock2019,
	author = {Arel-Bundock, Vincent},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124119882460},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Arel_Bundock_19_QCA_robustness.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
	keywords = {configurational diversity,error,is an influential methodological,measurement,monte carlo simulation,qca,qualitative comparative analysis,research methods,sample size},
	pages = {1--20},
	title = {{The Double Bind of Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
	year = {2019}
}

@article{Basedau2014,
	author = {Basedau, Matthias and Richter, Thomas},
	doi = {10.1017/S1755773913000234},
	file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Basedau, Richter - 2013 - Why do some oil exporters experience civil war but others do not investigating the conditional effects of oil.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {1755773913000},
	issn = {1755-7739},
	journal = {European Political Science Review},
	keywords = {civil war,csqca,ethnic exclusion,oil,political institutions},
	month = {nov},
	number = {4},
	pages = {549--574},
	title = {{Why do some oil exporters experience civil war but others do not?: investigating the conditional effects of oil}},
	url = {http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract{\_}S1755773913000234},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2014}
}

@Article{Baumgartner2014QQ,
  author  = {Baumgartner, Michael},
  title   = {{Parsimony and Causality}},
  journal = {Quality {\&} Quantity},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11135-014-0026-7},
  file    = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Baumgartner - 2013 - Parsimony and Causality.pdf:pdf;:D$\backslash$:/My Documents/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Baumgartner\_14\_parsimony\_causality.pdf:pdf},
}

@Article{BaumgartnerEpple,
  Title                    = {{A Coincidence Analysis of a Causal Chain: The Swiss Minaret Vote}},
  Author                   = {Baumgartner, M. and Epple, R.},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = oct,
  Pages                    = {1--33},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0049124113502948},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Baumgartner, Epple - 2013 - A Coincidence Analysis of a Causal Chain The Swiss Minaret Vote.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0049-1241},
  Keywords                 = {causal chains,causal modeling,cna,coincidence analysis,comparative analysis,qca,qualitative,swiss minaret vote},
  Url                      = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124113502948}
}

@article{Baumgartner2008,
	author = {Baumgartner, Michael},
	doi = {10.1007/s11229-008-9348-0},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Baumgartner 2008 deterministic structures Boolean.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0039-7857},
	journal = {Synthese},
	keywords = {causal reasoning,causation,deterministic structures,discovery algorithms},
	month = {jun},
	number = {1},
	pages = {71--96},
	title = {{Uncovering deterministic causal structures: a Boolean approach}},
	url = {http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11229-008-9348-0},
	volume = {170},
	year = {2008}
}

@article{Baumgartner2008chainproblem,
	abstract = {This paper addresses a problem that arises when it comes to inferring deterministic causal chains from pertinent empirical data. It will be shown that to every deterministic chain there exists an empirically equivalent common cause structure. Thus, our overall conviction that deterministic chains are one of the most ubiquitous (macroscopic) causal structures is underdetermined by empirical data. It will be argued that even though the chain and its associated common cause model are empirically equivalent there exists an important asymmetry between the two models with respect to model expansions. This asymmetry might constitute a basis on which to disambiguate corresponding causal inferences on non-empirical grounds. {\textcopyright} 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.},
	author = {Baumgartner, Michael},
	doi = {10.1007/s10670-008-9113-2},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Baumgartner_08_causal_chain_problem.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {01650106},
	journal = {Erkenntnis},
	keywords = {Causal chains,Causal reasoning,Causation,Determinism},
	number = {2},
	pages = {201--226},
	title = {{The causal chain problem}},
	volume = {69},
	year = {2008}
}


@article{BeachKaas2020divide,
	abstract = {There is still significant confusion about how multimethod research can be undertaken and even if it is possible. The article makes the claims that much of the confusion is the result of a failure to distinguish between multimethod and multimethodology research. We argue that there are at least three different methodological languages: variance-based, case-based, and interpretivist. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying the three different methodologies that result in them making very different types of claims evidenced with very different empirical material. Variance-based methodologies assesses mean causal effects across a set of cases, whereas case-based methodologies focus on how a causal process works within a case. Markedly different from the causally oriented variance- and case-bases approaches, interpretivist research ask questions about human meaning-making in specific contexts. While the claim of methodological incommensurability is not a new claim, the contribution we make in this article is to unpack more clearly the irreconcilable differences that exist across the three methodologies and how they play out in international studies scholarship, and to provide suggestions for what we can do about it.},
	author = {Beach, Derek and Kaas, Jonas Gejl},
	doi = {10.1093/isr/viaa016},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Desktop/reading1.1-Great Divides.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {14682486},
	journal = {International Studies Review},
	keywords = {case-based,causal mechanisms,counterfactuals,interpretivism,meaning-making,methodology,multimethod research,variance-based},
	number = {2},
	pages = {214--235},
	title = {{The Great Divides: Incommensurability, the Impossibility of Mixed-Methodology, and What to Do about It}},
	volume = {22},
	year = {2020}
}

@incollection{BeachSiewert2019,
	address = {Ann Arbor},
	author = {Beach, Derek and Siewert, Markus},
	booktitle = {Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Giudelines},
	chapter = {4},
	edition = {2nd},
	pages = {89--154},
	publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
	title = {{Case Selection and Nesting of Process- Tracing Case Studies}},
	year = {2019}
}

@book{BeachPedersen2019,
	address = {Ann Arbor},
	author = {Beach, Derek and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun},
	edition = {2nd},
	file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Beach, Pedersen - 2019 - Process- Tracing Methods Foundations and Giudelines.pdf:pdf},
	publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
	title = {{Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Giudelines}},
	year = {2019}
}

@article{beachAchievingMethodologicalAlignment2018,
  title = {Achieving {{Methodological Alignment When Combining QCA}} and {{Process}} Tracing in {{Practice}}},
  author = {Beach, Derek},
  year = {2018},
  month = jan,
  journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
  volume = {47},
  number = {1},
  pages = {64--99},
  issn = {0049-1241, 1552-8294},
  doi = {10.1177/0049124117701475},
  abstract = {This article explores the practical challenges one faces when combining qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and process tracing (PT) in a manner that is consistent with their underlying assumptions about the nature of causal relationships. While PT builds on a mechanism-based understanding of causation, QCA as a comparative method makes claims about counterfactual causal relationships. Given the need to ensure alignment between the ontological understandings of causation that underlie a method and methodological practice, the different ontological foundations result in methodological guidelines that contradict each other, forcing the analyst to choose whether to be more in alignment with one or the other method. This article explores the implications of contrasting guidelines in a practical case study, where a QCA for sufficiency is followed by two PT case studies of positive cases.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {24 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/beach_2018_achieving_methodological_alignment_when_combining_qca_and_process_tracing_in.pdf}
}

@Book{Beach2013book,
  title     = {{Process Tracing Methods}},
  publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
  year      = {2013},
  author    = {Beach, Derek and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun},
  address   = {Ann Arbor},
}

@Article{Beach2018SMRco,
  author    = {Beach, Derek and Rohlfing, Ingo},
  title     = {Integrating cross-case analyses and process tracing in set-theoretic research: {Strategies} and parameters of debate},
  journal   = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  year      = {2018},
  volume    = {47},
  number    = {1},
  pages     = {3-36},
  owner     = {rohlfing},
  timestamp = {2016.03.30},
}

@Article{Bennett1999,
  Title                    = {Causal inference in case studies: From Mill's methods to causal mechanisms},
  Author                   = {Bennett, Andrew},
  Journal                  = {Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.},
  Year                     = {1999},

  Keywords                 = {case studies
causal inference
conceptions of theory
determinism
probabilism
scientific realism
Statistical analysis},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.06.08}
}

@InBook{BennettCheckelchap1,
  pages     = {1-37},
  title     = {Process Tracing: From Methodological Roots to Best Practices},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  year      = {2014},
  author    = {Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey},
  editor    = {Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  booktitle = {Process Tracing in the Social Sciences: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool},
  owner     = {rohlfing},
  timestamp = {2015.06.06},
}

@Article{Bennett2006,
  Title                    = {{Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods}},
  Author                   = {Bennett, Andrew and Elman, Colin},
  Journal                  = {Annual Review of Political Science},
  Year                     = {2006},
  Pages                    = {455--476},
  Volume                   = {9},

  Abstract                 = {This article surveys the extensive new literature that has brought about a renaissance of qualitative methods in political science over the past decade. It reviews this literature's focus on causal mechanisms and its emphasis on process tracing, a key form of within-case analysis, and it discusses the ways in which case-selection criteria in qualitative research differ from those in statistical research. Next, the article assesses how process tracing and typological theorizing help address forms of complexity, such as path dependence and interaction effects. The article then addresses the method of fuzzy-set analysis. The article concludes with a call for greater attention to means of combining alternative methodological approaches in research projects.},
  Keywords                 = {EXPLANATION,HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY,POLITICS,fuzzy sets,path dependence,process tracing,selection bias,typologies}
}

@InCollection{Berg-Schlosser2008,
  Title                    = {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis as an approach}},
  Author                   = {Berg-Schlosser, Dirk and {De Meur}, Gis\`{e}le and , Charles C and Rihoux, Beno\^{\i}t},
  Booktitle                = {Configurational Comparative Methods},
  Publisher                = {Sage},
  Year                     = {2008},

  Address                  = {Thousand Oaks},
  Editor                   = {Rihoux, Benoit and Ragin, Charles},
  Pages                    = {1--18}
}

@article{blairetalDeclaringDiagnosingResearch2019,
  title = {Declaring and {{Diagnosing Research Designs}}},
  author = {Blair, Graeme and Cooper, Jasper and Coppock, Alexander and Humphreys, Macartan},
  year = {2019},
  month = aug,
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  volume = {113},
  number = {3},
  pages = {838--859},
  issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
  doi = {10.1017/S0003055419000194},
  abstract = {Researchers need to select high-quality research designs and communicate those designs clearly to readers. Both tasks are difficult. We provide a framework for formally ``declaring'' the analytically relevant features of a research design in a demonstrably complete manner, with applications to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. The approach to design declaration we describe requires defining a model of the world (               M               ), an inquiry (               I               ), a data strategy (               D               ), and an answer strategy (               A               ). Declaration of these features in code provides sufficient information for researchers and readers to use Monte Carlo techniques to diagnose properties such as power, bias, accuracy of qualitative causal inferences, and other ``diagnosands.'' Ex ante declarations can be used to improve designs and facilitate preregistration, analysis, and reconciliation of intended and actual analyses. Ex post declarations are useful for describing, sharing, reanalyzing, and critiquing existing designs. We provide open-source software, DeclareDesign, to implement the proposed approach.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {32 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/blair_2019_declaring_and_diagnosing_research_designs.pdf}
}

@article{deblockAddressingChallengesRelated2019,
  title = {Addressing the {{Challenges Related}} to {{Transforming Qualitative Into Quantitative Data}} in {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis}}},
  author = {{de Block}, Debora and Vis, Barbara},
  year = {2019},
  month = oct,
  journal = {Journal of Mixed Methods Research},
  volume = {13},
  number = {4},
  pages = {503--535},
  issn = {1558-6898, 1558-6901},
  doi = {10.1177/1558689818770061},
  abstract = {The use of qualitative data has so far received relatively little attention in methodological discussions on qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This article addresses this lacuna by discussing the challenges researchers face when transforming qualitative data into quantitative data in QCA. By reviewing 29 empirical studies using qualitative data for QCA, we explore common practices related to data calibration, data presentation, and sensitivity testing. Based on these three issues, we provide considerations when using qualitative data for QCA, which are relevant both for QCA scholars working with qualitative data and the wider mixed methods research community involved in quantitizing.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {34 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/de_block_vis_2019_addressing_the_challenges_related_to_transforming_qualitative_into_quantitative.pdf}
}

@Article{Bol2013,
  Title                    = {{Confronting Theories Based on Necessary Relations: Making the Best of QCA Possibilities}},
  Author                   = {Bol, Damien and Luppi, Francesca},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {205--210},
  Volume                   = {66},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/1065912912468269g},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Bol, Luppi - 2013 - Confronting Theories Based on Necessary Relations Making the Best of QCA Possibilities.pdf:pdf},
  ISBN                     = {1065912912468}
}

@InCollection{Brady2008,
  Title                    = {{Causation and Explanation in Social Science}},
  Author                   = {Brady, Henry E.},
  Booktitle                = {The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology},
  Publisher                = {Oxford University Press},
  Year                     = {2008},

  Address                  = {Oxford},
  Editor                   = {Box-Steffensmeier, Janet and Brady, Henry and Collier, David},
  Pages                    = {217--270}
}

@Article{Braumoeller2003,
  Title                    = {{Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics}},
  Author                   = {Braumoeller, Bear F},
  Journal                  = {Political Analysis},
  Year                     = {2003},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {209--233},
  Volume                   = {11},

  Abstract                 = {Theories that posit complex causation, or multiple causal paths, pervade the study of politics but have yet to find accurate statistical expression. To remedy this situation I derive new econometric procedures, Boolean probit and logit, based on the logic of complexity. The solution provides an answer to a puzzle in the rational deterrence literature: the divergence between theory and case-study findings, on the one hand, and the findings of quantitative studies, on the other, on the issue of the role of capabilities and willingness in the initiation of disputes. It also makes the case that different methodological traditions, rather than settling into "separate but equal" status, can instead inform and enrich one another.}
}

@Article{Braumoeller2000,
  Title                    = {{The methodology of necessary conditions}},
  Author                   = {Braumoeller, Bear F and Goertz, Gary},
  Journal                  = {American Journal of Political Science},
  Year                     = {2000},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {844--858},
  Volume                   = {44},

  Abstract                 = {Necessary conditions provide an interesting example of a concept that everyone knows, that many people use, and yet for which no explicit methodology exists. The gap between theory and empirical testing in political science is rarely as wide as it is in the case of necessary conditions. Political science is rich in theories and hypotheses that imply necessity, but adequate empirical tests are lacking. As the concept of a necessary condition is a useful one for social scientists, methodological tools for the evaluation of necessary condition hypotheses must be developed. This constitutes our purpose. We describe appropriate procedures for the two key aspects of the empirical evaluation of necessary condition hypotheses: determining (1) whether X is a necessary condition for Y and, if so, (2) whether X is trivially necessary.},
  Annote                   = {Times Cited: 3
Article
English
Cited References Count: 45
360dg},
  Keywords                 = {Univ Wisconsin Press,deterrence,foreign-policy,model,pacific,states,war},
  Mendeley-tags            = {Univ Wisconsin Press}
}

@article{Bretthauer2015,
	author = {Bretthauer, Judith M.},
	doi = {10.1177/0022002713516841},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Bretthauer_14_ethnic_conflict_fsQCA.pdf:pdf;:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Bretthauer_15_ethnic_conflict_fsQCA.pdf:pdf;:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Bretthauer_14_ethnic_conflict_fsQCA_appendix.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0022-0027},
	journal = {Journal of Conflict Resolution},
	keywords = {armed conflict,environmental change,fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis,qca,resource scarcity},
	month = {feb},
	number = {4},
	pages = {593--616},
	title = {{Conditions for Peace and Conflict: Applying a Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to Cases of Resource Scarcity}},
	url = {http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0022002713516841},
	volume = {59},
	year = {2015}
}

@Article{Bunzl2004AHR,
  author   = {Bunzl, Martin},
  title    = {Counterfactual History: A User's Guide.},
  journal  = {American Historical Review},
  year     = {2004},
  volume   = {109},
  number   = {3},
  pages    = {845-858},
  abstract = {Deals with counterfactual reasoning in relation to history. Connection between causal claims and counterfactual claims; Reasonableness of the constraints that are assumed to govern how the historical actors see their choices; Compatibility of counterfactuals with determinism.},
  keywords = {CAUSATION COUNTERFACTUALS (Logic) DETERMINISM (Philosophy) HISTORY REASONING},
}

@Article{Caren2005,
  Title                    = {{TQCA: A Technique for Adding Temporality to Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Caren, Neal and Panofsky, Aaron},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2005},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {147--172},
  Volume                   = {34}
}

@Article{Cebotari2013,
  Title                    = {{A configurational analysis of ethnic protest in Europe}},
  Author                   = {Cebotari, V. and Vink, M. P.},
  Journal                  = {International Journal of Comparative Sociology},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = oct,
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {298--324},
  Volume                   = {54},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0020715213508567},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Cebotari, Vink - 2013 - A configurational analysis of ethnic protest in Europe.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0020-7152},
  Keywords                 = {causal complexity,ethnic protest,europe,fuzzy-set analysis,minorities at risk},
  Url                      = {http://cos.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0020715213508567}
}

@article{Chatterjee2013,
	author = {Chatterjee, Abhishek},
	file = {:E\:/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Chatterjee_11_mmr_ontology.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Philosophy of the Social Sciences},
	number = {1},
	pages = {73--99},
	title = {{Ontology, Epistemology, and Multimethod Research in Political Science}},
	volume = {43},
	year = {2013}
}


@article{Collier2014algorithm,
	author = {Collier, D.},
	doi = {10.1177/0081175014542568},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Collier_2014_SM_QCA_response.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {0081175014542},
	issn = {0081-1750},
	journal = {Sociological Methodology},
	month = {jul},
	number = {1},
	pages = {122--126},
	title = {{Comment: QCA Should Set Aside the Algorithms}},
	url = {http://smx.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/0081175014542568},
	volume = {44},
	year = {2014}
}


@Article{Collier2011PS,
  Title                    = {Understanding Process Tracing},
  Author                   = {Collier, David},
  Journal                  = {PS: Political Science {\&} Politics},
  Year                     = {2011},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {823-830},
  Volume                   = {44},

  Abstract                 = {Process tracing is a fundamental tool of qualitative analysis. This method is often invoked by scholars who carry out within-case analysis based on qualitative data, yet frequently it is neither adequately understood nor rigorously applied. This deficit motivates this article, which offers a new framework for carrying out process tracing. The reformulation integrates discussions of process tracing and causal-process observations, gives greater attention to description as a key contribution, and emphasizes the causal sequence in which process-tracing observations can be situated. In the current period of major innovation in quantitative tools for causal inference, this reformulation is part of a wider, parallel effort to achieve greater systematization of qualitative methods. A key point here is that these methods can add inferential leverage that is often lacking in quantitative analysis. This article is accompanied by online teaching exercises, focused on four examples from American politics, two from comparative politics, three from international relations, and one from public health/epidemiology.},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2016.04.04}
}

@Article{Collier2012,
  Title                    = {{Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor}},
  Author                   = {Collier, David and LaPorte, Jody and Seawright, Jason},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2012},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {217--232},
  Volume                   = {65},

  Abstract                 = {Typologies are well-established analytic tools in the social sciences. They can be “put to work��? in forming concepts, refining measurement, exploring dimensionality, and organizing explanatory claims. Yet some critics, basing their arguments on what they believe are relevant norms of quantitative measurement, consider typologies old-fashioned and unsophisticated. This critique is methodologically unsound, and research based on typologies can and should proceed according to high standards of rigor and careful measurement. These standards are summarized in guidelines for careful work with typologies, and an illustrative inventory of typologies, as well as a brief glossary, are included online.},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/1065912912437162}
}

@Article{Collier1993,
  Title                    = {{Conceptual Stretching Revisited - Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Collier, David and Mahon, James E},
  Journal                  = {American Political Science Review},
  Year                     = {1993},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {845--855},
  Volume                   = {87},

  Abstract                 = {When scholars extend their models and hypotheses to encompass additional cases, they commonly need to adapt their analytic categories to fit the new contexts. Giovanni Sartori's work on conceptual ''traveling'' and conceptual ''stretching'' provides helpful guidance in addressing this fundamental task of comparative analysis. Yet Sartori's framework draws upon what may be called classical categorization, which views the relation among categories in terms of a taxonomic hierarchy, with each category having clear boundaries and defining properties shared by all members. We examine the challenge to this framework presented by two types of nonclassical categories: family resemblances and radial categories. With such categories, the overly strict application of a classical framework can lead to abandoning to category prematurely or to modifying it inappropriately. We discuss solutions to these problems, using examples of how scholars have adapted their categories in comparative research on democracy and authoritarianism.},
  Annote                   = {Times Cited: 34
Article
English
Cited References Count: 66
Mk480},
  Keywords                 = {Amer Political Science Assoc},
  Mendeley-tags            = {Amer Political Science Assoc}
}

@InBook{Collier2004quest,
  Title                    = {The Quest for Standards},
  Author                   = {Collier, David and Seawright, Jason and Munck, Gerardo L.},
  Editor                   = {Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David},
  Pages                    = {21-50},
  Publisher                = {Rowman {\&} Littlefield},
  Year                     = {2004},

  Address                  = {Lanham},

  Booktitle                = {Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.09.27}
}

@unpublished{crasnowPluralismPartnershipsEvidential2022,
  title = {Pluralism and Partnerships: The Evidential Foundations of Multimethod Research in Political Science},
  author = {Crasnow, Sharon and Goertz, Gary and Haggard, Stephan},
  year = {2022},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/crasnow_2022_pluralism_and_partnerships_-_the_evidential_foundations_of_multimethod_research.pdf}
}

@Article{Cooper2011,
  Title                    = {{Using case-based approaches to analyse large datasets: a comparison of Ragin's fsQCA and fuzzy cluster analysis}},
  Author                   = {Cooper, Barry and Glaesser, Judith},
  Journal                  = {International Journal of Social Research Methodology},
  Year                     = {2011},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {31--48},
  Volume                   = {14},

  Abstract                 = {The paper undertakes a comparison of Ragin's fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis with cluster analysis. After describing key features of both methods, it uses a simple invented example to illustrate an important algorithmic difference in the way in which these methods classify cases. It then examines the consequences of this difference via analyses of data previously calibrated as fuzzy sets. The data, taken from the National Child Development Study, concern educational achievement, social class, ability and gender. The classifications produced by fsQCA and fuzzy cluster analysis (FCA) are compared and the reasons for the observed differences between them are discussed. The predictive power of both methods is also compared, employing both correlational and set theoretic comparisons, using highest qualification achieved as the outcome. In the main, using the real data, the two methods are found to produce similar results. A final discussion considers the generalisability or otherwise of this finding.},
  Annote                   = {ISI Document Delivery No.: 692JE
Times Cited: 0
Cited Reference Count: 39
Cooper, Barry Glaesser, Judith
Routledge journals, taylor {\&} francis ltd
Abingdon},
  Doi                      = {10.1080/13645579.2010.483079},
  ISBN                     = {1364-5579},
  Keywords                 = {Child Development Study,Classification of cases,National,QCA,causality,fs,fuzzy cluster analysis,set,social class and education},
  Language                 = {English}
}

@incollection{Cronqvist2009mv,
	address = {Thousand Oaks/London},
	annote = {12270},
	author = {Cronqvist, Lasse and Berg-Schlosser, Dirk},
	booktitle = {Configurational Comparative Methods. Quanlitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques},
	editor = {Rihoux, Benoit and Ragin, Charles C},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Cronqvist Berg-Schlosser 08 mvQCA.pdf:pdf},
	pages = {69--86},
	publisher = {Sage},
	title = {{Multi-value QCA (mvQCA)}},
	year = {2009}
}

@book{Dusa2018,
    author = {Dusa, Adrian},
    file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/paperbooks of others/Dusa{\_}18{\_}QCAbook.pdf:pdf},
    publisher = {Springer},
    title = {{QCA with R}},
    year = {2018}
}

@InCollection{Eckstein1975booksec,
  author    = {Eckstein, Harry},
  title     = {{Case Study and Theory in Political Science}},
  booktitle = {Strategies of Inquiry. Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7},
  publisher = {Addison-Wesley},
  year      = {1975},
  editor    = {Greenstein, Fred I and Polsby, Nelson W},
  pages     = {79--137},
  address   = {Reading, Mass.},
}

@Article{Eliason2009,
  Title                    = {{Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Descriptive Measures in Fuzzy-Set Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Eliason, Scott R and Stryker, Robin},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods Research},
  Year                     = {2009},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {102--146},
  Volume                   = {38},

  Abstract                 = {In this article the authors develop goodness-of-fit tests for fuzzy-set analyses to formally assess the fit between empirical information and various causal hypotheses while accounting for measurement error in membership scores. These goodness-of-fit tests, and the accompanying logic, provide a sound inferential foundation for fuzzy-set methodology. The authors also develop descriptive measures to complement these tests. Examples from Stryker and Eliason (2003) and Mahoney (2003) show how goodness-of-fit tests and descriptive measures may be used to assess individual causal factors as well as conjunctions of factors. The authors show how these tools provide more information in a fuzzy-set analysis than do tests currently in use. In providing this inferential foundation, the authors also show that fuzzy-set methods (a) are no less amenable to falsificationist methods of the Neyman-Pearson type than are standard statistical techniques and (b) may be usefully applied in either an exploratory/inductive or a confirmatory/deductive research design.}
}

@article{emmeneggerHowGoodAre2011a,
  title = {How Good Are Your Counterfactuals? {{Assessing}} Quantitative Macro-Comparative Welfare State Research with Qualitative Criteria},
  shorttitle = {How Good Are Your Counterfactuals?},
  author = {Emmenegger, Patrick},
  year = {2011},
  journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},
  volume = {21},
  number = {4},
  pages = {365--380},
  issn = {0958-9287, 1461-7269},
  doi = {10.1177/0958928711412222},
  abstract = {All causal statements based on historical data \textendash{} both in qualitative and quantitative social research \textendash{} rely on counterfactuals. In quantitative research, scholars attempt to arrive at valid counterfactuals by emulating an experimental design. However, because of treatments that are impossible to manipulate and the non-random assignment of data to treatment and control groups, causal statements are often based on invalid counterfactuals. In qualitative research, scholars attempt to arrive at valid counterfactuals by probing the historical and logical consistency of counterfactuals and by acknowledging the interconnectedness of events. Criteria to evaluate counterfactuals have been developed, which allow for a discussion of the quality of counterfactuals used in causal statements. In this article, we suggest using these qualitative criteria to evaluate counterfactuals in quantitative macro-comparative welfare state research. We argue that these criteria can help us identify erroneous causal inferences in quantitative research based on historical data.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {16 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/emmenegger_2011_how_good_are_your_counterfactuals_-_assessing_quantitative_macro-comparative.pdf}
}

@Article{Falleti2009,
  Title                    = {{Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Falleti, Tulia G and Lynch, Julia F},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2009},
  Number                   = {9},
  Pages                    = {1143--1166},
  Volume                   = {42},

  Abstract                 = {Political scientists largely agree that causal mechanisms are crucial to understanding causation. Recent advances in qualitative and quantitative methodology suggest that causal explanations must be contextually bounded. Yet the relationship between context and mechanisms and this relationship's importance for causation are not well understood. This study defines causal mechanisms as portable concepts that explain how and why a hypothesized cause, in a given context, contributes to a particular outcome. In turn, it defines context as the relevant aspects of a setting in which an array of initial conditions leads to an outcome of a defined scope and meaning via causal mechanisms. Drawing from these definitions is the argument that credible causal explanation can occur if and only if researchers are attentive to the interaction between causal mechanisms and context, regardless of whether the methods employed are small-sample, formal, statistical, or interpretive.}
}

@article{Fiss2011a,
	author = {Fiss, Peer C.},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Fiss_11_typologies_fuzzy.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Academy of Management Journal},
	number = {2},
	pages = {393--420},
	title = {{Building Better Causal Theories: a Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research}},
	volume = {54},
	year = {2011}
}

@Article{Fortin2012,
  Title                    = {{Is There a Necessary Condition for Democracy? The Role of State Capacity in Postcommunist Countries}},
  Author                   = {Fortin, Jessica},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2012},
  Number                   = {7},
  Pages                    = {903--930},
  Volume                   = {45},

  Abstract                 = {Although postcommunist countries share a common past, the variability of outcomes in both democracy and economic reform is very large in the region. Only a few countries have become Western-type democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic. By contrast, the norm is clearly not democracy for other Soviet successor states. In this article, the author attributes this variation to differences in the infrastructural capacity of the state. Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses within 26 postcommunist countries, the author argues that for democracy to flourish, the state must first possess the necessary means to maintain law and order and to protect the rights of citizens, in other words, to ensure the maintenance and delivery of essential public goods. The results show that the links between a strong state that has been able to apply a definitive set of rules and democratic institutions are clear.},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/0010414011428587}
}

@Article{Frendreis1983,
  Title                    = {Explanation of variation and detection of covariation: The purpose and logic of comparative analysis},
  Author                   = {Frendreis, John},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {1983},
  Pages                    = {255-272},

  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.09.14}
}

@Unpublished{Garcia-Castro2013,
  Title                    = {{A General Approach to Panel Data Set-Theoretic Research}},
  Author                   = {Garc\'{\i}a-Castro, Roberto and Arino, Miguel A.},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Address                  = {COMPASSS Working Paper 2013-76},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Garc\'{\i}a-Castro, Arino - 2013 - A General Approach to Panel Data Set-Theoretic Research.pdf:pdf},
  Pages                    = {1--27}
}

@Book{George2005,
  Title                    = {{Case studies and theory development in the social sciences}},
  Author                   = {George, Alexander L and Bennett, Andrew},
  Publisher                = {MIT Press},
  Year                     = {2005},

  Address                  = {Cambridge, Mass.},

  Annote                   = {Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett.
ill. ; 24 cm.},
  ISBN                     = {0262072572 (alk. paper)
0262572222 (pbk. alk. paper)},
  Keywords                 = {Rf,Social sciences Case studies.,Social sciences Methodology.},
  Mendeley-tags            = {Rf},
  Pages                    = {xv, 331 p.},
  Url                      = {http://firstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/DCARead?standardNoType=1\&standardNo=0262572222:srcdbname=worldcat:fromExternal=true\&sessionid=0}
}

@book{GerringBookCaseStudies2017,
	address = {Cambridge},
	author = {Gerring, John},
	edition = {2nd},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Gerring - 2017 - Case Study Research Principles and Practices.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {9781119130536},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	title = {{Case Study Research: Principles and Practices}},
	year = {2017}
}


@Book{Gerring2012,
  Title                    = {{Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework - DRAFT}},
  Author                   = {Gerring, John},
  Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Address                  = {Cambridge},
  Edition                  = {second},

  Annote                   = {
 From Duplicate 1 ( 
 
 
 Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework - DRAFT
 
 
 - Gerring, John )

 
 

 

 

 From Duplicate 2 ( 
 
 
 Social science methodology. a critical framework
 
 
 - Gerring, John )

 
 
Record ID: 7170

 

 },
  Booktitle                = {Strategies},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Gerring - 2012 - Social Science Methodology A Criterial Framework - DRAFT.pdf:pdf},
  ISBN                     = {9780521115049}
}

@Article{Gerring2007,
  Title                    = {{Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?}},
  Author                   = {Gerring, John},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2007},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {231--253},
  Volume                   = {40},

  Abstract                 = {least likely case},
  Annote                   = {Record Number: 11510},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Gerring - 2007 - Is there a (viable) crucial-case method.pdf:pdf}
}

@Book{Gerring2007a,
  Title                    = {{The Case Study Method: Principles and Practices}},
  Author                   = {Gerring, John},
  Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
  Year                     = {2007},

  Address                  = {Cambridge}
}

@Book{Gerring2007d,
  Title                    = {{Case study research. principles and practices}},
  Author                   = {Gerring, John},
  Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
  Year                     = {2007},

  Address                  = {Cambridge, MA},

  Booktitle                = {Social Science},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Gerring - 2007 - Case study research. principles and practices.pdf:pdf}
}

@book{gerritsEvaluationComplexInfrastructure2018,
  title = {The {{Evaluation}} of {{Complex Infrastructure Projects}}},
  author = {Gerrits, Lasse and Verweij, Stefan},
  year = {2018},
  publisher = {{Edward Elgar Publishing}},
  doi = {10.4337/9781783478422},
  isbn = {978-1-78347-842-2},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/gerrits_verweij_2018_the_evaluation_of_complex_infrastructure_projects.pdf}
}

@Article{Goerres2010,
  Title                    = {{Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes}},
  Author                   = {Goerres, Achim and Prinzen, Katrin},
  Journal                  = {Quality {\&} Quantity},
  Year                     = {2010},

  Month                    = nov,

  Doi                      = {10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Goerres, Prinzen - 2010 - Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an app.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0033-5177},
  Keywords                 = {mixed methods,multi-method approach,welfare state attitudes},
  Url                      = {http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8}
}

@unpublished{goertzLargeNQualitativeAnalysis2022,
  title = {Large-{{N Qualitative Analysis}} ({{LNQA}}): Causal Generalization in Case Study and Multimethod Research},
  author = {Goertz, Gary and Haggard, Stephan},
  year = {2022},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/goertz_haggard_2022_large-n_qualitative_analysis_(lnqa)_-_causal_generalization_in_case_study_and.pdf}
}

@Article{Goertz2008,
  Title                    = {{Choosing cases for case studies: A qualitative logic}},
  Author                   = {Goertz, Gary},
  Journal                  = {Newsletter of the APSA Section on Qualitative {\&} Multi-Method Research},
  Year                     = {2008},
  Pages                    = {11--14}
}

@book{Goertz2017MMR,
	abstract = {multimethod research},
	address = {Princeton and Oxford},
	author = {Goertz, Gary},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/paperbooks of others/Goertz_17_MMR_case_studies.pdf:pdf},
	publisher = {Princeton University Press},
	title = {{Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach}},
	year = {2017}
}


@Article{Goertz2013,
  Title                    = {{For Methodological Pluralism: A Reply to Brady and Elman}},
  Author                   = {Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J.},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = nov,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {278--285},
  Volume                   = {46},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0010414012466380},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Goertz, Mahoney - 2012 - For Methodological Pluralism A Reply to Brady and Elman.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0010-4140},
  Url                      = {http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0010414012466380}
}

@Book{Goertz2012book,
  title     = {A tale of two cultures: contrasting qualitative and quantitative paradigms},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  year      = {2012},
  author    = {Goertz, Gary and Mahoney, James},
  address   = {Princeton, N.J},
  file      = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Goertz, Mahoney - Unknown - A tale of two cultures contrasting qualitative and quantitative paradigms.pdf:pdf},
}

@Article{Goertz2012,
  Title                    = {{For Methodological Pluralism: A Reply to Brady and Elman}},
  Author                   = {Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J.},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Month                    = nov,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {278--285},
  Volume                   = {46},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0010414012466380},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Goertz, Mahoney - 2012 - For Methodological Pluralism A Reply to Brady and Elman.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0010-4140},
  Url                      = {http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0010414012466380}
}

@Article{Goertz2005,
  Title                    = {{Two-Level Theories and Fuzzy-Set Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Goertz, Gary and Mahoney, James},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2005},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {497--538},
  Volume                   = {33},

  Abstract                 = {Two-level theories explain outcomes with causal variables at two levels of analysis that are systematically related to one another. Although many prominent scholars in the field of comparative analysis have developed two-level theories, the empirical and methodological issues that these theories raise have yet to be investigated. In this article, the authors explore different structures of two-level theories and consider the issues involved in testing these theories with fuzzy-set methods. They show that grasping the overall structure of two-level theories requires both specifying the particular type of relationship that exists between and within levels of analysis and specifying the logical linkages between levels in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. They argue that for the purposes of testing these theories, fuzzy-set analysis provides a powerful set of tools. However, to realize this potential, investigators using fuzzy-set methods must be clear about the two-level structure of their theories from the onset.},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Goertz, Mahoney - 2005 - Two-level theories and fuzzy set analysis.pdf:pdf}
}

@Book{Goertz2003,
  Title                    = {{Necessary Conditions. Theory, Methodology, and Applications}},
  Author                   = {Goertz, Gary and Starr, Harvey},
  Publisher                = {Rowman {\&} Littlefield},
  Year                     = {2003},

  Address                  = {Lanham}
}

@article{HaesebrouckThomann2022,
	abstract = {This special issue addresses questions of causality and validity of different solution types in configurational comparative methods (CCMs). First, what main parameters characterize the debate about correct causal interpretation of solution types? Second, to what extent has this debate been linked to a theory of causation? The special issue contribution by Mahoney and Acosta bases qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) within a regularity theory of causation integrating type-level inferences and counterfactual cases. Swiatczak clarifies how the different algorithms underlying QCA and Coincidence Analysis (CNA) produce non-identical models. Baumgartner defines and benchmarks QCA solution types against the search target of minimal robust sufficiency. Alamos-Concha et al. identify the conservative solution as most appropriate for a multimethod design combining a counterfactual causal understanding at the cross-case level with an in-depth mechanistic explanation at the within-case level. Finally, Mahoney and Owen develop a general set-theoretic framework for the study of necessity and sufficiency in quantitative research using a counterfactual understanding of causality. Our introduction reviews the state of the art, identifies current limitations and open questions regarding the theoretical basis for causal interpretation of QCA solutions.},
	author = {Haesebrouck, Tim and Thomann, Eva},
	doi = {10.1007/s11135-021-01209-4},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Haesebrouck, Thomann - 2022 - Introduction Causation, inferences, and solution types in configurational comparative methods.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {0123456789},
	issn = {0033-5177},
	journal = {Quality \& Quantity},
	keywords = {Causality,Coincidence analysis (CNA),Configurational comparative methods,Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA),Solution types,causality,cna,coincidence analysis,configurational comparative methods,qca,qualitative comparative analysis,solution types},
	number = {56},
	pages = {1867--1888},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	title = {{Introduction: Causation, inferences, and solution types in configurational comparative methods}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01209-4},
	year = {2022}
}

@article{Haesebrouck2020,
	author = {Haesebrouck, Tim and {Van Immerseel}, Anouschka},
	doi = {10.1017/S1755773920000223},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Haesebrouck{\_}vanImmerseel{\_}20{\_}military{\_}QCA.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {17557747},
	journal = {European Political Science Review},
	keywords = {QCA,foreign policy analysis,military intervention,party politics,political contestation},
	pages = {371--390},
	title = {{When does politics stop at the water's edge? A QCA of parliamentary consensus on military deployment decisions}},
	year = {2020}
}

@Article{Hall2008,
  Title                    = {{Systematic Process Analysis: when and how to use it}},
  Author                   = {Hall, Peter A},
  Journal                  = {European Political Science},
  Year                     = {2008},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {304--317},
  Volume                   = {7}
}

@article{Humphreys2015,
	author = {Humphreys, Macartan and Jacobs, Alan},
	doi = {10.1017/S0003055415000453},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Macartan_Jacobs_15_Bayesian_mixed.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0003-0554},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	number = {4},
	pages = {653--673},
	title = {{Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach}},
	volume = {109},
	year = {2015}
}

@Book{Kaeding2007,
  Title                    = {{Better regulation in the European Union: Lost in Translation or Full Steam Ahead?}},
  Author                   = {Kaeding, Michael},
  Publisher                = {Amsterdam University Press},
  Year                     = {2007},

  Address                  = {Amsterdam}
}

@book{Kapiszewski2015,
	address = {Cambridge},
	author = {Kapiszewski, Diana},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	title = {{Field Research in Political Science Practices and Principles}},
	year = {2015}
}

@book{kahwatiQualitativeComparativeAnalysis2019,
  title = {Qualitative {{Comparative Analysis}} in {{Mixed Methods Research}} and {{Evaluation}}},
  author = {Kahwati, Leila C. and Kane, Heather L.},
  year = {2019},
  series = {Mixed {{Methods Research Series}}},
  publisher = {{Sage}}
}

@article{KoivuSchneiderVis2021,
	author = {Koivu, Kendra and Schneider, Carsten and Vis, Barbara},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider{\_}Koivu{\_}Vis{\_}19{\_}QDT.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	title = {{Set-Analytic Approaches, Especially Qualitative Comparative Analysis ( QCA )}},
	year = {2021}
}

@Article{Kuehn2010,
  Title                    = {{Causal Explanation and Multi-Method Research in the Social Sciences}},
  Author                   = {K\"{u}hn, David and Rohlfing, Ingo},
  Journal                  = {IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series Political Methodology, no. 26},
  Year                     = {2010},
  Number                   = {February},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Kuehn - 2010 - Political Methodology Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series Causal Explanation and Multi-Method Research.pdf:pdf},
  Institution              = {IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series Political Methodology, no. 26}
}

@Book{Lebow2010book,
  title     = {{Forbidden fruit: counterfactuals and international relations}},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  year      = {2010},
  author    = {Lebow, Richard Ned},
  address   = {Princeton},
  keywords  = {Cold War.,Counterfactuals (Logic),Imaginary histories.,International relations Research.,World politics Research.},
}

@Article{Levy2008,
  Title                    = {{Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference}},
  Author                   = {Levy, Jack S},
  Journal                  = {Conflict Management and Peace Science},
  Year                     = {2008},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {1--18},
  Volume                   = {25},

  Abstract                 = {I focus on the role of case studies in developing causal explanations. I distinguish between the theoretical purposes of case studies and the case selection strategies or research designs used to advance those objectives. I construct a typology of case studies based on their purposes: idiographic (inductive and theory-guided), hypothesis-generating, hypothesis-testing, and plausibility probe case studies. I then examine different case study research designs, including comparable cases, most and least likely cases, deviant cases, and process tracing, with attention to their different purposes and logics of inference. I address the issue of selection bias and the "single logic" debate, and I emphasize the utility of multi-method research.}
}

@Book{Levy2007,
  Title                    = {{Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals}},
  Author                   = {Levy, Jack S and Goertz, Gary},
  Publisher                = {Routledge},
  Year                     = {2007},

  Address                  = {London}
}

@Article{Lewis1973,
  Title                    = {{Causation}},
  Author                   = {Lewis, David},
  Journal                  = {The Journal of Philosophy},
  Year                     = {1973},
  Number                   = {17},
  Pages                    = {556--567},
  Volume                   = {70},

  ISBN                     = {0022362X},
  Publisher                = {Journal of Philosophy, Inc.}
}

@Article{Lieberman2005APSR,
  author   = {Lieberman, Evan S},
  title    = {{Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research}},
  journal  = {American Political Science Review},
  year     = {2005},
  volume   = {99},
  number   = {3},
  pages    = {435--452},
  abstract = {Despite repeated calls for the use of "mixed methods" in comparative analysis, political scientists have few systematic guides for carrying out such work. This paper details a unified approach which joins intensive case-study analysis with statistical analysis. Not only are the advantages of each approach combined, but also there is a synergistic value to the nested research design: for example, statistical analyses can guide case selection for in-depth research, provide direction for more focused case studies and comparisons, and be used to provide additional tests of hypotheses generated from small-N research. Small-N analyses can be used to assess the plausibility of observed statistical relationships between variables, to generate theoretical insights from outlier and other cases, and to develop better measurement strategies. This integrated strategy improves the prospects of making valid causal inferences in cross-national and other forms of comparative research by drawing on the distinct strengths of two important approaches.},
}

@Article{Lieberson1991,
  Title                    = {Small Ns and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases},
  Author                   = {Lieberson, Stanley},
  Journal                  = {Social Forces},
  Year                     = {1991},
  Note                     = {Times Cited: 57
Article
English
Cited References Count: 20
Hb009},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {307-320},
  Volume                   = {70},

  Abstract                 = {An increasing number of studies, particularly in the area of comparative and historical research, are using the method of agreement and method of difference proposed by Mill (1872) to infer causality based on a small number of cases. This article examines the logic of the assumptions implicit in such studies. For example, the research must assume: (1) a deterministic approach rather than a probabilistic one, (2) no errors in measurement, (3) the existence of only one cause, and (4) the absence of interaction effects. These assumptions are normally inappropriate, since they contradict a realistic appraisal of most social processes, but are mandatory if we follow Mill's causal analyses based on small N's. Research should not attempt employment of such methods in small-N cases without a more rigorous justification of heroic assumptions and a guard against possible distortions.},
  Keywords                 = {united-states},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.09.14}
}

@Article{Lijphart1975,
  Title                    = {{Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research}},
  Author                   = {Lijphart, Arend},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {1975},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {158-177},
  Volume                   = {8}
}

@Article{Lijphart1971APSR,
  author  = {Lijphart, Arend},
  title   = {{Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method}},
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  year    = {1971},
  volume  = {65},
  number  = {3},
  pages   = {682--693},
}

@Article{Lucas2003,
  Title                    = {{Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity}},
  Author                   = {Lucas, Jeffrey W},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Theory},
  Year                     = {2003},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {236--253},
  Volume                   = {21},

  Abstract                 = {External validity refers to the generalization of research findings, either from a sample to a larger population or to settings and populations other than those studied. While definitions vary, discussions generally agree that experiments are lower in external validity than other methodological approaches. Further, external validity is widely treated as an issue to be addressed through methodological procedures. When testing theories, all measures are indirect indicators of theoretical constructs, and no methodological procedures taken alone can produce external validity. External validity can be assessed through determining (1) the extent to which empirical measures accurately reflect theoretical constructs, (2) whether the research setting conforms to the scope of the theory under test, (3) our confidence that findings will repeat under identical conditions, (4) whether findings support the theory being tested, and (5) the confirmatory status of the theory under test. In these ways, external validity is foremost a theoretical issue and can only be addressed by an examination of the interplay between theory and methods.}
}

@Article{LucasSzatrowski2014,
  Title                    = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Critical Perspective},
  Author                   = {Lucas, Samuel R. and Szatrowski, Alisa},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methodology},
  Year                     = {2014},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {1-79},
  Volume                   = {44},

  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.06.08}
}

@Article{Machamer2004,
  Title                    = {{Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms}},
  Author                   = {Machamer, Peter},
  Journal                  = {International Studies in the Philosophy of Science},
  Year                     = {2004},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {27--39},
  Volume                   = {18},

  Abstract                 = {This article deals with mechanisms conceived as composed of entities and activities. In response to many perplexities about the nature of activities, a number of arguments are developed concerning their epistemic and ontological status. Some questions concerning the relations between cause and causal explanation and mechanisms are also addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Studies in the Philosophy of Science is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)},
  Doi                      = {10.1080/02698590412331289242},
  ISBN                     = {02698595},
  Publisher                = {Routledge}
}

@Article{Machamer2000,
  Title                    = {{Thinking About Mechanisms}},
  Author                   = {Machamer, Peter and Darden, Lindley and Craver, Carl F.},
  Journal                  = {Philosophy of Science},
  Year                     = {2000},
  Number                   = {March},
  Pages                    = {1--25},
  Volume                   = {67},

  Abstract                 = {The concept of mechanism is analyzed in terms of entities and activities, organized such that they are productive of regular changes. Examples show how mechanisms work in neurobiology and molecular biology. Thinking in terms of mechanisms provides a new framework for addressing many traditional philosophical issues: causality, laws, expla- nation, reduction, and scientific change.}
}

@article{Mackie1965,
	author = {Mackie, John L},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Mackie{\_}65{\_}causes{\_}conditions.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {American Philosophical Quarterly},
	number = {4},
	pages = {245--264},
	title = {{Causes and conditions}},
	volume = {2},
	year = {1965}
}


@Book{Mackie1974,
  Title                    = {{The cement of the universe: a study of causation}},
  Author                   = {Mackie, John L},
  Publisher                = {Clarendon Press},
  Year                     = {1974},

  Address                  = {Oxford},

  Annote                   = {74167054
GB***
(John Leslie)
[by] J. L. Mackie.
23 cm.
Bibliography: p. [323]-326.},
  Booktitle                = {The Clarendon library of logic and philosophy},
  ISBN                     = {0198244053},
  Keywords                 = {Causation.,Teleology.},
  Pages                    = {329 p.},
  Pmid                     = {1265252}
}

@book{Mahoney2021,
	address = {Princeton and Oxford},
	author = {Mahoney, James},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/paperbooks of others/Mahoney_21_SocialScience_book.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {9780691217055},
	publisher = {Princeton University Press},
	title = {{The Logic of Social Science}},
	year = {2021}
}

@article{MahoneyAcosta2021,
	author = {Mahoney, James and Acosta, Laura},
	doi = {10.1007/s11135-021-01190-y},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Mahoney_Acosta_21_regularity_theory.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {0123456789},
	issn = {1573-7845},
	journal = {Quality {\&} Quantity},
	keywords = {Causation,Hume,Comparative-historical analysis,QCA,causation,comparative-historical analysis,hume,qca,qualitative},
	number = {June},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	title = {{A regularity theory of causality for the social sciences}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01190-y},
	year = {2021}
}


@Article{Mahoney2012,
  Title                    = {{The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences}},
  Author                   = {Mahoney, James},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Month                    = mar,
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {570--597},
  Volume                   = {41},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0049124112437709},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mahoney - 2012 - The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.pdf:pdf;:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mahoney - 2012 - The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences(2).pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0049-1241},
  Keywords                 = {case studies,causal inference,deductive-nomological,hypothesis testing},
  Url                      = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124112437709}
}

@Article{Mahoney2010,
  Title                    = {{After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research}},
  Author                   = {Mahoney, James},
  Journal                  = {World Politics},
  Year                     = {2010},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {120--147},
  Volume                   = {62},

  Doi                      = {10.1017/s0043887109990220},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mahoney - 2010 - After KKV The New Methodology of Qualitative Research.pdf:pdf}
}

@Article{Mahoney2000,
  Title                    = {Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis},
  Author                   = {Mahoney, James},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2000},
  Note                     = {Times Cited: 6
Article
English
Cited References Count: 83
310ya},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {387-424},
  Volume                   = {28},

  Abstract                 = {Much debate concerning small-N analysis has centered on the question of whether this research tradition has powerful tools for assessing causality. Yet, recent contributions make it clear that scholars are not in consensus with regard to the more basic issue of which procedures and underlying logic are in fact used in small-N causal assessment. Focusing on the field of comparative-historical analysis, this article attempts to clarify these procedures and logic. Methods associated with three major strategies of small-N causal inference are examined: nominal comparison, ordinal comparison, and within-case analysis. The article argues that the use of these three strategies within particular small-N studies has led scholars to reach radically divergent conclusions about the logic of causal analysis in small-N research. One implication of this argument is that methodologists must sort our the interrelationship between strategies of causal inference before arriving at conclusions about the overall strengths and limitations of small-N analysis.},
  Keywords                 = {event-structure analysis
historical sociology
qualitative-analysis
rational choice
big conclusions
social-science
time
explanation
realism},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.09.14}
}

@Article{Mahoney2009sequence,
  Title                    = {{The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences}},
  Author                   = {Mahoney, James and Kimball, Erin and Koivu, Kendra L},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2009},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {114--146},
  Volume                   = {42},

  Abstract                 = {Historical explanations seek to identify the causes of outcomes in particular cases. Although social scientists commonly develop historical explanations, they lack criteria for distinguishing different types of causes and for evaluating the relative importance of alternative causes of the same outcome. This article first provides an inventory of the five types of causes that are normally used in historical explanations: (1) necessary but not sufficient, (2) sufficient but not necessary, (3) necessary and sufficient, (4) INUS, and (5) SUIN causes. It then introduces a new method�sequence elaboration�for evaluating the relative importance of causes. Sequence elaboration assesses the importance of causes through consideration of their position within a sequence and through consideration of the types of causes that make up the sequence as a whole. Throughout the article, methodological points are illustrated with substantive examples from the field of international and comparative studies.},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mahoney, Kimball, Koivu - 2009 - The Logic of Historical.pdf:pdf},
  Keywords                 = {causality,explanation,logic,sequence analysis,set theory}
}

@Article{Marx2014EPSR,
  author   = {Marx, Axel and Rihoux, Beno\^{\i}t and Ragin, Charles},
  title    = {The origins, development, and application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: the first 25 years},
  journal  = {European Political Science Review},
  year     = {2014},
  volume   = {6},
  number   = {3},
  pages    = {115--142},
  month    = feb,
  issn     = {1755-7739},
  doi      = {10.1017/S1755773912000318},
  file     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Marx, Rihoux, Ragin - 2014 - The origins, development, and application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis the first 25 years.pdf:pdf},
  keywords = {case study,comparative methodology,qualitative comparative analysis},
  url      = {http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract\_S1755773912000318},
}

@Article{Mayo2006,
  Title                    = {Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman�Pearson Philosophy of Induction},
  Author                   = {Mayo, Deborah G. and Spanos, Aris},
  Journal                  = {The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science},
  Year                     = {2006},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {323-357},
  Volume                   = {57},

  Abstract                 = {Despite the widespread use of key concepts of the Neyman�Pearson (N�P) statistical paradigm�type I and II errors, significance levels, power, confidence levels�they have been the subject of philosophical controversy and debate for over 60 years. Both current and long-standing problems of N�P tests stem from unclarity and confusion, even among N�P adherents, as to how a test's (pre-data) error probabilities are to be used for (post-data) inductive inference as opposed to inductive behavior. We argue that the relevance of error probabilities is to ensure that only statistical hypotheses that have passed severe or probative tests are inferred from the data. The severity criterion supplies a meta-statistical principle for evaluating proposed statistical inferences, avoiding classic fallacies from tests that are overly sensitive, as well as those not sensitive enough to particular errors and discrepancies. Introduction and overview 1.1 Behavioristic and inferential rationales for Neyman�Pearson (N�P) tests1.2 Severity rationale: induction as severe testing1.3 Severity as a meta-statistical concept: three required restrictions on the N�P paradigmError statistical tests from the severity perspective 2.1 N�P test T(?): type I, II error probabilities and power2.2 Specifying test T(?) using p-valuesNeyman's post-data use of power 3.1 Neyman: does failure to reject H warrant confirming H?Severe testing as a basic concept for an adequate post-data inference 4.1 The severity interpretation of acceptance (SIA) for test T(?)4.2 The fallacy of acceptance (i.e., an insignificant difference): Ms Rosy4.3 Severity and powerFallacy of rejection: statistical vs. substantive significance 5.1 Taking a rejection of H0 as evidence for a substantive claim or theory5.2 A statistically significant difference from H0 may fail to indicate a substantively important magnitude5.3 Principle for the severity interpretation of a rejection (SIR)5.4 Comparing significant results with different sample sizes in T(?): large n problem5.5 General testing rules for T(?), using the severe testing conceptThe severe testing concept and confidence intervals 6.1 Dualities between one and two-sided intervals and tests6.2 Avoiding shortcomings of confidence intervalsBeyond the N�P paradigm: pure significance, and misspecification testsConcluding comments: have we shown severity to be a basic concept in a N�P philosophy of induction?},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.09.23}
}

@article{Medzihorsky2016,
author = {Medzihorsky, Juraj and Oana, Ioana-Elena and Quaranta, Mario and Schneider, Carsten Q.},
journal = {https://cran.r-project.org/web/{\%}0Apackages/SetMethods/index.html},
mendeley-groups = {my{\_}pubs},
title = {{SetMethods: Functions for Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research and Advanced QCA, R package, version 2.3}},
year = {2016}
}

@book{Mello2021,
	author = {Mello, Patrick A.},
	publisher = {Georgetown University Press},
	title = {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis: An Introduction to Research Design and Application}},
	year = {2021}
}


@Book{Mello2012a,
  Title                    = {{Democracies and Armed Conflict. Military Participation in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq}},
  Author                   = {Mello, Patrick},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Booktitle                = {Iraq},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mello - 2012 - Democracies and Armed Conflict. Military Participation in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.pdf:pdf}
}

@Unpublished{Mello2012,
  Title                    = {{A Critical Review of Applications in QCA and Fuzzy-Set Analysis and a ‘ Toolbox ’ of Proven Solutions to Frequently Encountered Problems}},
  Author                   = {Mello, Patrick A},
  Year                     = {2012},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mello - 2012 - A Critical Review of Applications in QCA and Fuzzy-Set Analysis and a ‘ Toolbox ’ of Proven Solutions to Frequently Encou.pdf:pdf},
  Institution              = {APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2105539}
}

@Article{Methods,
  Title                    = {{Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing Ingo Rohlfing}},
  Author                   = {Methods, Sociological and Richard-strau, Cologne and Sessions, Ecpr Joint},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rohlfing - Unknown - Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing(2).pdf:pdf},
  Keywords                 = {causal inference,causal mechanisms,certainty,sufficiency,uniqueness}
}

@article{MeuerRupietta2017,
	abstract = {Systematically combining quantitative and qualitative research approaches offers the potential for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of social scientific phenomena. With their strong opportunities for building, qualifying, and testing social scientific theories, methodological integrations thus enable researchers to make substantive contributions that would not have been possible with one method alone. In this article we demonstrate how the integration of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and conventional statistical analysis offers researchers new opportunities for contributing to the social sciences. Whereas statistical analysis is variable-oriented and relies on correlational analysis to make comparisons across cases, QCA is based on set theory, is case oriented, and relies on Boolean algebra to make comparisons between cases. Drawing on the literature on the interdependency between theoretical contribution and methodology, we review studies that integrate QCA and statistical analysis to explain how the specific combination of these two approaches allows researchers to strengthen the theoretical contribution of their research. From our review we identify common challenges and provide solutions for integrating QCA and statistical analysis.},
	author = {Meuer, Johannes and Rupietta, Christian},
	doi = {10.1007/s11135-016-0397-z},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/MeuerRupietta17_QCA_Stats.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {15737845},
	journal = {Quality and Quantity},
	keywords = {Methodological integration,Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA),Research design,Statistical analysis},
	number = {5},
	pages = {2063--2083},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	title = {{A review of integrated QCA and statistical analyses}},
	volume = {51},
	year = {2017}
}

@article{MeuerRupietta2017HLM,
	author = {Meuer, Johannes and Rupietta, Christian},
	journal = {Organizational Research Methods},
	number = {2},
	pages = {324--342},
	title = {{Integrating QCA and HLM for multilevel research on organizational configurations}},
	volume = {20},
	year = {2017}
}

@article{Mikkelsen2015a,
	abstract = {Contemporary case studies rely on verbal arguments and set theory to build or evaluate theoretical claims. While existing procedures excel in the use of qualitative information (information about kind), they ignore quantitative information (information about degree) at central points of the analysis. Effectively, contemporary case studies rely on crisp sets. In this article, I make the case for fuzzy-set case studies. I argue that the mechanisms that are the focal points of contemporary case study methods can be modeled as set-theoretic causal structures. I show how case study claims translate into sufficiency statements. And I show how these statements can be evaluated using fuzzy-set tools. This procedure permits the use of both qualitative and quantitative information throughout a case study. As a consequence, the analysis can determinewhether oneormorecases arebothqualitativelyand quan- titatively consistent with its claims. Or whether some or all cases are consistent by kind but not by degree. Keywords},
	author = {Mikkelsen, K. S.},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124115578032},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Mikkelsen{\_}15{\_}fuzzyset{\_}casestudies.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0049-1241},
	journal = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
	keywords = {case studies,causal mechanisms,fuzzy sets,set-theoretic consistency},
	number = {3},
	pages = {422--455},
	title = {{Fuzzy-set Case Studies}},
	url = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124115578032},
	volume = {46},
	year = {2017}
}

@book{Mill1874,
	address = {New York},
	author = {Mill, John Stuart},
	publisher = {Harper {\&} Brothers},
	title = {{A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive}},
	year = {1874}
}

@Book{Morgan2013,
  Title                    = {{Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research}},
  Author                   = {Morgan, Stephen L.},
  Year                     = {2013},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Morgan - 2013 - Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research.pdf:pdf},
  ISBN                     = {9789400760936}
}

@Article{Mudde2010a,
  Title                    = {{Introduction: Rational Data Choice}},
  Author                   = {Mudde, C. and Schedler, a.},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2010},

  Month                    = may,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {410--416},
  Volume                   = {63},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/1065912910371286},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mudde, Schedler - 2010 - Introduction Rational Data Choice.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1065-9129},
  Url                      = {http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1065912910371286}
}

@Article{Ngbala2003SJP,
  Title                    = {Causal attribution and counterfactual thinking - when does performing one facilitate performance of the other},
  Author                   = {N'gbala, A. and R. Branscombe, N.},
  Journal                  = {Swiss Journal of Psychology},
  Year                     = {2003},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {209-218},
  Volume                   = {62},

  Abstract                 = {When do causal attribution and counterfactual thinking facilitate one another, and when do the two responses overlap? Undergraduates ( N = 78) both explained and undid, in each of two orders, events that were described either with their potential causes or not. The time to perform either response was recorded. Overall, mutation response times were shorter when performed after an attribution was made than before, while attribution response times did not vary as a consequence of sequence. Depending on whether the causes of the target events were described in the scenario or not, respondents undid the actor and assigned causality to another antecedent, or pointed to the actor for both responses. These findings suggest that counterfactual mutation is most likely to be facilitated by attribution, and that mutation and attribution responses are most likely to overlap when no information about potential causes of the event is provided.},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2016.04.05}
}

@article{nielsenCaseSelectionMatching2016,
  title = {Case {{Selection}} via {{Matching}}},
  author = {Nielsen, Richard A.},
  year = {2016},
  month = aug,
  journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
  volume = {45},
  number = {3},
  pages = {569--597},
  issn = {0049-1241, 1552-8294},
  doi = {10.1177/0049124114547054},
  abstract = {This article shows how statistical matching methods can be used to select ``most similar'' cases for qualitative analysis. I first offer a methodological justification for research designs based on selecting most similar cases. I then discuss the applicability of existing matching methods to the task of selecting most similar cases and propose adaptations to meet the unique requirements of qualitative analysis. Through several applications, I show that matching methods have advantages over traditional selection in ``most similar'' case designs: They ensure that most similar cases are in fact most similar; they make scope conditions, assumptions, and measurement explicit; and they make case selection transparent and replicable.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {38 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/nielsen_2016_case_selection_via_matching2.pdf}
}

@article{OanaSchneider2021,
	author = {Oana, Ioana-Elena and Schneider, Carsten Q.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211036158},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/OanaSchneider_21_robustness.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
	title = {{A Robustness Test Protocol for Applied QCA: Theory and R Software Application}},
	year = {2021}
}

@book{OanaCUP,
	address = {Cambridge},
	author = {Oana, Ioana-Elena and Schneider, Carsten Q. and Thomann, Eva},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	title = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) using R: A Beginner's Guide},
	year = {2021}
}

@article{OanaSchneider2018,
	author = {Oana, Ioana-Elena and Schneider, Carsten Q},
	file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Oana, Schneider - 2018 - SetMethods an Add-on R Package for Advanced QCA.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {The R Journal},
	pages = {1--27},
	title = {{SetMethods: an Add-on R Package for Advanced QCA}},
	url = {https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-031/index.html},
	volume = {XX},
	year = {2018}
}

@article{pagliarinetalQualData2022,
  title = {The ``Qualitative'' in Qualitative Comparative Analysis ({{QCA}}): Research Moves, Case-Intimacy and Face-to-Face Interviews},
  shorttitle = {The ``Qualitative'' in Qualitative Comparative Analysis ({{QCA}})},
  author = {Pagliarin, Sofia and La Mendola, Salvatore and Vis, Barbara},
  year = {2022},
  journal = {Quality \& Quantity},
  issn = {0033-5177, 1573-7845},
  doi = {10.1007/s11135-022-01358-0},
  abstract = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) includes two main components: QCA ``as a research approach'' and QCA ``as a method''. In this study, we focus on the former and, by means of the ``interpretive spiral'', we critically look at the research process of QCA. We show how QCA as a research approach is composed of (1) an ``analytical move'', where cases, conditions and outcome(s) are conceptualised in terms of sets, and (2) a ``membership move'', where set membership values are qualitatively assigned by the researcher (i.e. calibration). Moreover, we show that QCA scholars have not sufficiently acknowledged the data generation process as a constituent research phase (or ``move'') for the performance of QCA. This is particularly relevant when qualitative data\textendash e.g. interviews, focus groups, documents\textendash are used for subsequent analysis and calibration (i.e. analytical and membership moves). We call the qualitative data collection process ``relational move'' because, for data gathering, researchers establish the social relation ``interview'' with the study participants. By using examples from our own research, we show how a dialogical interviewing style can help researchers gain the in-depth knowledge necessary to meaningfully represent qualitative data into set membership values for QCA, hence improving our ability to account for the ``qualitative'' in QCA.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {0 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/pagliarin_2022_the_“qualitative”_in_qualitative_comparative_analysis_(qca)_-_research_moves,.pdf}
}

@article{PagliarinGerrits2020,
	author = {Pagliarin, Sofia and Gerrits, Lasse},
	doi = {10.1177/2059799120959170},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Pagliarin_Gerrits_20_QCA_time.pdf:pdf},
	isbn = {2059799120},
	journal = {Methodological Innovations},
	keywords = {complexity,configurations,longitudinal,qualitative methods,time-series,trajectory},
	pages = {1--11},
	title = {{Trajectory-based Qualitative Comparative Analysis : Accounting for case-based time dynamics}},
	year = {2020}
}

@Article{Pajunen2008,
  Title                    = {{Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: a fuzzy-set analysis}},
  Author                   = {Pajunen, Kalle},
  Journal                  = {Journal of International Business Studies},
  Year                     = {2008},

  Month                    = feb,
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {652--669},
  Volume                   = {39},

  Doi                      = {10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400371},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Pajunen - 2008 - Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment a fuzzy-set analysis.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0047-2506},
  Keywords                 = {13 august 2007,15 february 2006,foreign direct investment,fuzzy-set methods,institutional environment,qualitative,quantitative comparisons,received,revised},
  Url                      = {http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400371}
}

@article{pattynPolicyEffectivenessConfigurational2022,
  title = {Policy {{Effectiveness}} through {{Configurational}} and {{Mechanistic Lenses}}: {{Lessons}} for {{Concept Development}}},
  shorttitle = {Policy {{Effectiveness}} through {{Configurational}} and {{Mechanistic Lenses}}},
  author = {Pattyn, Val{\'e}rie and {\'A}lamos-Concha, Priscilla and Cambr{\'e}, Bart and Rihoux, Beno{\^i}t and Schalembier, Benjamin},
  year = {2022},
  journal = {Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice},
  volume = {24},
  number = {1},
  pages = {33--50},
  issn = {1387-6988, 1572-5448},
  doi = {10.1080/13876988.2020.1773263},
  abstract = {The aim of this article is to build up a concept-informed research design to answer ``why and how'' a policy can make a difference. It demonstrates the potential and challenges of an innovative multimethod approach, which combines a configurational and mechanistic view to policy effectiveness. The article hereto draws on experiences in applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Process Tracing in one single evaluation. The study calls for a rigorous treatment of concepts, especially to avoid the risk of mechanistic heterogeneity. It unpacks important lessons in concept formation and operationalization, so as to ensure concept validity and to make strong causal inferences.},
  langid = {english},
  annotation = {5 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/pattyn_2022_policy_effectiveness_through_configurational_and_mechanistic_lenses_-_lessons.pdf}
}

@Article{Pennings2003,
  Title                    = {{Beyond dichotomous explanations: explaining constitutional control fo the executive with fuzzy-sets}},
  Author                   = {Pennings, Paul},
  Journal                  = {European Journal of Political Research},
  Year                     = {2003},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {541--567},
  Volume                   = {42},

  Annote                   = {Record Number: 9890},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Pennings - 2003 - Beyond dichotomous explanations explaining constitutional control fo the executive with fuzzy-sets.pdf:pdf}
}

@book{PrzeworskiTeune1970,
	address = {New York},
	author = {Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry},
	publisher = {Wiley-Interscience},
	title = {{The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry}},
	year = {1970}
}


@Article{Rihoux2013c,
  Title                    = {{Review Article Qualitative Comparative Analysis ( QCA ), Anno 2013 : Reframing The Comparative Method ’ s Seminal Statements}},
  Author                   = {Political, Swiss and Review, Science},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {233--245},
  Volume                   = {19},

  Doi                      = {10.1111/spsr.12031},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Political, Review - 2013 - Review Article Qualitative Comparative Analysis ( QCA ), Anno 2013 Reframing The Comparative Method ’ s Semi.pdf:pdf}
}

@InCollection{Ragin1998,
  Title                    = {{Case-Oriented Research and the Study of Social Action}},
  Author                   = {Ragin, Charles C},
  Booktitle                = {Rational Choice Theory and Large-Scale Data Analysis},
  Publisher                = {Westview},
  Year                     = {1998},

  Address                  = {Boulder},
  Editor                   = {Blossfeld, Hans-Peter and Prein, Gerald},
  Pages                    = {158--168}
}

@Book{Ragin2008,
  Title                    = {{Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond}},
  Author                   = {Ragin, Charles C},
  Publisher                = {University of Chicago Press},
  Year                     = {2008},

  Address                  = {Chicago}
}

@Article{Ragin2006PA,
  Title                    = {Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage},
  Author                   = {Ragin, Charles C.},
  Journal                  = {Political Analysis},
  Year                     = {2006},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {291-310},
  Volume                   = {14},

  Abstract                 = {Because of its inherently asymmetric nature, set-theoretic analysis offers many interesting contrasts with analysis based on correlations. Until recently, however, social scientists have been slow to embrace set-theoretic approaches. The perception was that this type of analysis is restricted to primitive, binary variables and that it has little or no tolerance for error. With the advent of "fuzzy" sets and the recognition that even rough set-theoretic relations are relevant to theory, these old barriers have crumbled. This paper advances the set-theoretic approach by presenting simple descriptive measures that can be used to evaluate set-theoretic relationships, especially relations between fuzzy sets. The first measure, "consistency," assesses the degree to which a subset relation has been approximated, whereas the second measure, "coverage," assesses the empirical relevance of a consistent subset. This paper demonstrates further that set-theoretic coverage can be partitioned in a manner somewhat analogous to the partitioning of explained variation in multiple regression analysis.},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2016.04.01}
}

@Book{Ragin2000book,
  Title                    = {{Fuzzy-Set social science}},
  Author                   = {Ragin, Charles C},
  Publisher                = {University of Chicago Press},
  Year                     = {2000},

  Address                  = {Chicago},

  ISBN                     = {0226702766},
  Keywords                 = {Fuzzy sets,Research,Social sciences},
  Mendeley-tags            = {Fuzzy sets,Research,Social sciences}
}

@book{RaginBecker1992,
	abstract = {Greifswald},
	address = {Cambridge},
	annote = {Record ID: 4730},
	author = {Ragin, Charles C and Becker, Howard S},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Ragin, Becker - 1992 - What is a case Exploring the foundations of social inquiry.pdf:pdf},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	title = {{What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry}},
	year = {1992}
}

@Book{Ragin1987book,
  title     = {The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Quantitative and Qualitative Strategies},
  publisher = {University of Berkeley Press},
  year      = {1987},
  author    = {Ragin, Charles C},
  address   = {Berkeley},
}

@InCollection{Ragin2008a,
  Title                    = {{Net effects versus configurations: an empirical demonstration}},
  Author                   = {Ragin, Charles C and Fiss, Peer},
  Booktitle                = {Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond},
  Publisher                = {University of Chicago Press},
  Year                     = {2008},

  Address                  = {Chicago},
  Editor                   = {Ragin, Charles C.},
  Pages                    = {190--212}
}

@InCollection{Ragin2011booksec,
  author    = {Ragin, Charles C. and Schneider, Garrett Andrew},
  title     = {{Case-Oriented Theory Building and Theory Testing}},
  booktitle = {The SAGE Handbook of Innovations in Social Research Methods},
  publisher = {Sage},
  year      = {2011},
  editor    = {{Williams W. Paul}, Malcolm; Vogt},
  pages     = {150--166},
  address   = {London},
  file      = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Ragin, Schneider - 2011 - Case-Oriented Theory Building and Theory Testing.pdf:pdf},
}

@Article{Ragin2008d,
  Title                    = {{Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to study causal order. comment on Caren and Panofsky (2005)}},
  Author                   = {Ragin, Charles C and Strand, Sarah},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2008},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {431--441},
  Volume                   = {36},

  Abstract                 = {Mail to Ragin on that paper I finally found some time to read your reply to Caren/Panofks. I find your critique absolutely convincing and your suggestions of how to use the current software for including sequences very good. There is, however, one aspect of your argument that I think (a) is crucial for most of your conclusions and (b) as stated in the paper not fully convincing: The key sentence for that is on page 2: "Because the order of events that did not occur is impossible to identify, in general, TQCA only considers ordering as it applies to conditions that occurred." As such, there is nothing wrong with the statement and, as you explain, this is a handy feature to reduce the vast amount of logically possible sequencing orders. However, i don't think that the negation of an instance necessarily is always just the non-occurrence of an instance. For the example you discuss STRIKE - strike -, your statement correctly applies but, to me it seems, that it does not apply to other conditions, such as, for instance, PUBLIC - public, where public not just simply indicates that they did not act in a public university but also (by implication) that they acted in a private university. I'd therefore say that for those conditions in which the negation also represents an event (which seems to be the case for all 'natural' dichotomies, at least), your dictum that one can exclude small letters from any sequence considerations does not apply in a straightforward manner. I would still have to think through what the consequences of this are - apart from a much larger number of sequences that need to be taken into account - on your suggestions on how to use the software for dealing with this problem},
  Annote                   = {Record Number: 10710}
}

@Article{Rapport2015,
  Title                    = {Hard Thinking about Hard and Easy Cases in Security Studies},
  Author                   = {Rapport, Aaron},
  Journal                  = {Security Studies},
  Year                     = {2015},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {431-465},
  Volume                   = {24},

  Abstract                 = {The idea of ?least likely? (or ?hard?) and ?most likely? cases with which to test theories has been addressed in many prominent works on qualitative methodology. Such research designs are especially common among those working in the field of security studies. Nevertheless, there exists considerable confusion regarding how these cases should be defined and how authors can draw sound inferences from them. At worst, such confusion leads to the impression that researchers apply the labels of least and most likely cases in an arbitrary fashion. This article advances two related rationales for categorizing cases as least or most likely, describing the necessary steps researchers should follow to employ them correctly. It incorporates literature from security studies to demonstrate the pitfalls that researchers may be vulnerable to without a precise idea of how least and most likely cases should be used.},
  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2016.03.31}
}

@Manual{RCoreTeam,
    title = {R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing},
    author = {{R Core Team}},
    organization = {R Foundation for Statistical Computing},
    address = {Vienna, Austria},
    year = {2018},
    url = {https://www.R-project.org/},
  }
  
@incollection{Rihouxetal2021QCAMixed,
	address = {New York/London},
	author = {Rihoux, Beno{\^{i}}t and Alamos-Concha, Priscilla and Lobe, Bojana},
	booktitle = {The Routledge Reviewer's Guide to Mixed Method Analysis},
	editor = {Onwuegbuzie, T. and Johnson, B.},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rihoux, Alamos-Concha, Lobe - 2021 - Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). An integrative approach suited for diverse mixed methods(2).pdf:pdf},
	pages = {185--197},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	title = {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). An integrative approach suited for diverse mixed methods and multimethod research strategies}},
	year = {2021}
}

  
@inbook{rihouxQualitativeComparativeAnalysis2020,
  title = {Qualitative {{Comparative Analysis}}: {{Discovering Core Combinations}} of {{Conditions}} in {{Political Decision Making}}},
  shorttitle = {Qualitative {{Comparative Analysis}}},
  booktitle = {Oxford {{Research Encyclopedia}} of {{Politics}}},
  author = {Rihoux, Beno{\^i}t},
  year = {2020},
  month = may,
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  doi = {10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1342},
  abstract = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was launched in the late 1980s by Charles Ragin, as a research approach bridging case-oriented and variable-oriented perspectives. It conceives cases as complex combinations of attributes (i.e. configurations), is designed to process multiple cases, and enables one to identify, through minimization algorithms, the core equifinal combinations of conditions leading to an outcome of interest. It systematizes the analysis in terms of necessity and sufficiency, models social reality in terms of set-theoretic relations, and provides powerful logical tools for complexity reduction. It initially came along with one technique, crisp-set QCA (csQCA), requiring dichotomized coding of data.             As it has expanded, the QCA field has been enriched by new techniques such as multi-value QCA (mvQCA) and especially fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA), both of which enable finer-grained calibration. It has also developed further with diverse extensions and more advanced designs, including mixed- and multimethod designs in which QCA is sequenced with focused case studies or with statistical analyses.             QCA's emphasis on causal complexity makes it very fit to address various types of objects and research questions touching upon political decision making\textemdash and indeed QCA has been applied in multiple related social scientific fields. While QCA can be exploited in different ways, it is most frequently used for theory evaluation purposes, with a streamlined protocol including a sequence of core operations and good practices. Several reliable software options are also available to implement the core of the QCA procedure. However, given QCA's case-based foundation, much researcher input is still required at different stages.             As it has further developed, QCA has been subject to fierce criticism, especially from a mainstream statistical perspective. This has stimulated further innovations and refinements, in particular in terms of parameters of fit and robustness tests which also correspond to the growth of QCA applications in larger-n designs. Altogether the field has diversified and broadened, and different users may exploit QCA in various ways, from smaller-n case-oriented uses to larger-n more analytic uses, and following different epistemological positions regarding causal claims. This broader field can therefore be labeled as that of both ``Configurational Comparative Methods'' (CCMs) and ``Set-Theoretic Methods'' (STMs).},
  collaborator = {Rihoux, Beno{\^i}t},
  isbn = {978-0-19-022863-7},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/rihoux_2020_qualitative_comparative_analysis_-_discovering_core_combinations_of_conditions.pdf}
}
  
@Article{Rihoux2013a,
  Title                    = {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Anno 2013: Reframing The Comparative Method 's Seminal Statements}},
  Author                   = {Rihoux, Beno\^{\i}t},
  Journal                  = {Swiss Political Science Review},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = jun,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {233--245},
  Volume                   = {19},

  Doi                      = {10.1111/spsr.12031},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Political, Review - 2013 - Review Article Qualitative Comparative Analysis ( QCA ), Anno 2013 Reframing The Comparative Method ’ s Semi.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {14247755},
  Url                      = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/spsr.12031}
}

@Unpublished{Rihoux2012,
  Title                    = {{It’s about Time. Which best Strategies to Articulate Sequence and Process with QCA?}},
  Author                   = {Rihoux, Beno\^{\i}t},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Abstract                 = {This paper sets out to make a first comprehensive and critical mapping of existing strategies to articulate the time, sequence and process dimensions with QCA. Starting from the critique that QCA was initially developed as a ‘static’ method, and nuancing this critique, it strives to clarify the issues and to examine the various practical options. To do so, we first attempt to clarify the concepts of “time��?, “sequence��? and “process��?, along with neighboring or attached concepts (e.g. events, causal mechanisms, \ldots), and stress some of their methodological implications. Second, we discuss to what extent, and in what ways, there is a deficit with regards to the inclusion of time/sequence/process in QCA, and we propose an inventory of the existing ‘toolboxes’ of (non-QCA) methods that are geared towards sequence and process. We also discuss various possible degrees of integration between these non-QCA methods and QCA itself. Third, we discuss concrete strategies that have already been attempted, as well as other possible strategies},
  Booktitle                = {Comparative and General Pharmacology},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rihoux - 2012 - It’s about Time. Which best Strategies to Articulate Sequence and Process with QCA.pdf:pdf},
  Institution              = {Paper prepared for workshop nr3 on “Methodological Advances, Bridges and Limits in the Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis��?, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Antwerp, 11-14 April 2012},
  Pages                    = {1--27}
}

@InProceedings{Rihoux2013b,
  Title                    = {{From approach to techniques to actual use: what are QCA's core weak spots?}},
  Author                   = {Rihoux, Beno\^{\i}t and Alamos, Priscilla},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {October},
  Pages                    = {23--24},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rihoux, Alamos - 2013 - From approach to techniques to actual use what re QCA's core weak spots.pdf:pdf}
}

@Article{Rihoux2013d,
  Title                    = {{From Niche to Mainstream Method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011}},
  Author                   = {Rihoux, Benoit and Alamos, Priscilla and Bol, Damien and Marx, Axel and Rezsohazy, Ilona},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {175--184},
  Volume                   = {66},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rihoux et al. - 2013 - From Niche to Mainstream Method A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011.pdf:pdf}
}

@InCollection{Rihoux2009booksec,
  author    = {Rihoux, Beno\^{\i}t and Lobe, Bojana},
  title     = {{The Case of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Adding Leverage for Cross-Case Comparison}},
  booktitle = {The Sage Handbook of Case-Based methods},
  publisher = {Sage},
  year      = {2009},
  editor    = {Byrne, David and Ragin, Charles C},
  pages     = {222--242},
  address   = {Thousand Oaks},
}

@Book{Rihoux2013,
  Title                    = {{QCA, 25 Years after "The Comparative Method": Mapping, Challenges, and Innovations--Mini-Symposium}},
  Author                   = {Rihoux, Benoît. and Marx, Axel},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Month                    = feb,
  Number                   = {1},
  Volume                   = {66},

  Booktitle                = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/1065912912468269},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rihoux, Marx - 2013 - QCA, 25 Years after The Comparative Method Mapping, Challenges, and Innovations--Mini-Symposium.pdf:pdf},
  ISBN                     = {1065912912468},
  ISSN                     = {1065-9129},
  Keywords                 = {case selection,case-oriented research,causal complex-,comparative methods,ity,lattice theory,limited diversity,logical remainders,measurement error,mixed-methods},
  Pages                    = {167--235},
  Url                      = {http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1065912912468269}
}

@Book{Rihoux2008a,
  Title                    = {{Configurational comparative methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques}},
  Author                   = {Rihoux, Benoit and Ragin, Charles C},
  Publisher                = {Sage},
  Year                     = {2009},

  Address                  = {Thousand Oaks/London},

  Annote                   = {Record ID: 10280}
}

@Article{Rohlfing2018SMR,
  author   = {Rohlfing, Ingo and Schneider, Carsten Q.},
  title    = {A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in Set-Theoretic Multimethod Research},
  journal  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  year     = {2018},
  volume   = {71},
  number   = {1},
  pages    = {37-63},
  abstract = {The combination of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) with process tracing, which we call set-theoretic multimethod research (MMR), is steadily becoming more popular in empirical research. Despite the fact that both methods have an elected affinity based on set theory, it is not obvious how a within-case method operating in a single case and a cross-case method operating on a population of cases are compatible and can be combined in empirical research. There is a need to reflect on whether and how set-theoretic MMR is internally coherent and how QCA and process tracing can be integrated in causal analysis. We develop a unifying foundation for causal analysis in set-theoretic MMR that highlights the roles and interplay of QCA and process tracing. We argue that causal inference via counterfactuals on the level of single cases integrates QCA and process tracing and assigns proper and equally valuable roles to both methods.},
}



@Article{Rohlfing2014SMR,
  Title                    = {{Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing}},
  Author                   = {Rohlfing, Ingo},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2014},
  Volume                   = {forthcoming},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rohlfing - Unknown - Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing.pdf:pdf}
}

@Book{Rohlfing2012book,
  title     = {{Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework}},
  publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  year      = {2012},
  author    = {Rohlfing, Ingo},
  address   = {Basingstoke},
}

@Article{Rohlfing2012a,
  Title                    = {{What is the Relation Between Comparative Historical Analysis and ‘Ordinary’ Case Studies?}},
  Author                   = {Rohlfing, Ingo},
  Journal                  = {European Political Science},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Month                    = mar,
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {16--19},
  Volume                   = {12},

  Doi                      = {10.1057/eps.2012.13},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rohlfing - 2012 - What is the Relation Between Comparative Historical Analysis and ‘Ordinary’ Case Studies.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1680-4333},
  Keywords                 = {case study research,comparative historical analysis,comparative methods,historical institutionalism,process tracing},
  Url                      = {http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/10.1057/eps.2012.13}
}

@Article{Rohlfing2011,
  Title                    = {{Analyzing Multilevel Data With QCA – A Straightforward Procedure}},
  Author                   = {Rohlfing, Ingo},
  Journal                  = {International Journal of Social Research Methodology},
  Year                     = {2011},
  Number                   = {0},
  Pages                    = {1--23},
  Volume                   = {49},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rohlfing - 2011 - Analyzing Multilevel Data With QCA – A Straightforward Procedure.pdf:pdf}
}

@Article{Rohlfing2008CPS,
  author   = {Rohlfing, Ingo},
  title    = {{What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research}},
  journal  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  year     = {2008},
  volume   = {41},
  number   = {11},
  pages    = {1492--1514},
  abstract = {In a recent contribution to this journal, Munck and Snyder found that many studies suffer from a deficient application of qualitative and quantitative methods. They argue that the combination of small-n and large-n analysis represents a viable method for promoting the production of knowledge. Recently, Evan Lieberman proposed nested analysis as a rigorous approach for comparative research that builds on the complementary strengths of quantitative and qualitative analysis. In this paper, the author examines the methodological potential of nested inference to advance comparative political analysis, arguing that the specific methodological problems of nested designs have not been fully appreciated. It is shown that, under certain circumstances, nothing is gained from a nested analysis. On the contrary, one might lose more than one gains compared to single-method designs. The author suggests specific methodological principles that take these problems into account to make nested analysis fruitful for comparative studies.},
}

@Article{Rohlfing2013PRQ,
  author  = {Rohlfing, Ingo and Schneider, Carsten Q.},
  title   = {{Improving research on necessary conditions: formalized case selection for process tracing after QCA}},
  journal = {Political Research Quarterly},
  year    = {2013},
  volume  = {66},
  number  = {1},
  pages   = {220-235},
}

@Article{RohlfingStarke2013,
  Title                    = {{Building on Solid Ground: Robust Case Selection in Multi-Method Research}},
  Author                   = {Rohlfing, Ingo and Starke, Peter},
  Journal                  = {Swiss Political Science Review},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = dec,
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {492--512},
  Volume                   = {19},

  Doi                      = {10.1111/spsr.12052},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Rohlfing, Starke - 2013 - Building on Solid Ground Robust Case Selection in Multi-Method Research.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {14247755},
  Url                      = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/spsr.12052}
}

@article{runhardtLimitsEvidentialPluralism2022,
  title = {Limits to Evidential Pluralism: Multi-Method Large-{{N}} Qualitative Analysis and the Primacy of Mechanistic Studies},
  shorttitle = {Limits to Evidential Pluralism},
  author = {Runhardt, Rosa W.},
  year = {2022},
  journal = {Synthese},
  volume = {200},
  number = {2},
  pages = {171},
  issn = {1573-0964},
  doi = {10.1007/s11229-022-03650-w},
  abstract = {Evidential pluralists, like Federica Russo and Jon Williamson, argue that causal claims should be corroborated by establishing both the existence of a suitable correlation and a suitable mechanism complex. At first glance, this fits well with mixed method research in the social sciences, which often involves a pluralist combination of statistical and mechanistic evidence. However, statistical evidence concerns a population of cases, while mechanistic evidence is found in individual case studies. How should researchers combine such general statistical evidence and specific mechanistic evidence? This article discusses a very recent answer to this question, `multi-method large-N qualitative analysis' or multi-method LNQA, popular in political science and international relations studies of rare events like democratic transitions and cease-fire agreements. Multi-method LNQA combines a comprehensive study of all (or most) relevant event cases with statistical analysis, in an attempt to solve the issues of generalization faced by other types of qualitative research, such as selection bias and lack of representativeness. I will argue that the kind of general causal claim that multi-method LNQA is after, however, is crucially different from the average treatment effect found in statistical analysis and can in fact only be supported with mechanistic evidence. I conclude from this that mixed method research, and thereby evidential pluralism, may be inappropriate in this context.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Case study research,Causal inference,Causal mechanisms,Evidential pluralism,Generalization;,International relations,Large-N qualitative analysis,LNQA,Mixed-methods research,Multi-method research,Political science,Qualitative research,Social science},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/runhardt_2022_limits_to_evidential_pluralism_-_multi-method_large-n_qualitative_analysis_and.pdf}
}

@article{russoInterpretingCausalityHealth2007,
  title = {Interpreting {{Causality}} in the {{Health Sciences}}},
  author = {Russo, Federica and Williamson, Jon},
  year = {2007},
  month = jul,
  journal = {International Studies in the Philosophy of Science},
  volume = {21},
  number = {2},
  pages = {157--170},
  publisher = {{Routledge}},
  issn = {0269-8595},
  doi = {10.1080/02698590701498084},
  abstract = {We argue that the health sciences make causal claims on the basis of evidence both of physical mechanisms, and of probabilistic dependencies. Consequently, an analysis of causality solely in terms of physical mechanisms or solely in terms of probabilistic relationships, does not do justice to the causal claims of these sciences. Yet there seems to be a single relation of cause in these sciences\textemdash pluralism about causality will not do either. Instead, we maintain, the health sciences require a theory of causality that unifies its mechanistic and probabilistic aspects. We argue that the epistemic theory of causality provides the required unification.},
  annotation = {\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590701498084},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/russo_williamson_2007_interpreting_causality_in_the_health_sciences.pdf}
}


@article{russoEpistemicCausalityEvidencebased2011,
  title = {Epistemic Causality and Evidence-Based Medicine},
  author = {Russo, Federica and Williamson, Jon},
  year = {2011},
  journal = {History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences},
  volume = {33},
  number = {4},
  pages = {563--581},
  publisher = {{Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn - Napoli}},
  issn = {0391-9714},
  abstract = {Causal claims in biomedical contexts are ubiquitous albeit they are not always made explicit. This paper addresses the question of what causal claims mean in the context of disease. It is argued that in medical contexts causality ought to be interpreted according to the epistemic theory. The epistemic theory offers an alternative to traditional accounts that cash out causation either in terms of "difference-making" relations or in terms of mechanisms. According to the epistemic approach, causal claims tell us about which inferences (e.g., diagnoses and prognoses) are appropriate, rather than about the presence of some physical causal relation analogous to distance or gravitational attraction. It is shown that the epistemic theory has important consequences for medical practice, in particular with regard to evidence-based causal assessment.},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/russo_williamson_2011_epistemic_causality_and_evidence-based_medicine.pdf}
}

@article{Rutten2020,
	author = {Rutten, Roel},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124120914955},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Rutten{\_}20{\_}QCA{\_}largeN{\_}robustness.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
	keywords = {causality,critical realism,large- n,qca,qualitative comparative analysis,robustness,validity},
	title = {{Applying and Assessing Large-N QCA : Causality and Robustness From a Critical Realist Perspective}},
	year = {2020}
}

@Article{Samford2010,
  Title                    = {{Replication data for 'Averting "Disruption and Reversal": Reassessing the Logic of Rapid Trade Reform in Latin America'}},
  Author                   = {Samford, Steven},
  Year                     = {2010},
  Pages                    = {http://www.unm.edu/\~{}ssamford/Steven\_Samford/Paper\_},
  Volume                   = {Retrieved},

  Abstract                 = {This study revisits the debate on trade reform in Latin America, focusing specifically on what combinations of conditions were necessary and sufficient for very rapid trade liberalization. It departs significantly from two types of studies that have been previously used to examine Latin American trade reform: (1) those using large samples and linear statistics to test the mean effects of variables on levels of trade protection and (2) those isolating necessary conditions for rapid reform but using a small number of case studies. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and short case studies, the study considers trade policy in sixty-one administrations. It finds that a key motivating factor for rapid trade opening is potential resistance from protected industry; it further identifies several other important enabling conditions, such as hyperinflation, devaluation, and an unconstrained executive. In combination, these enabling conditions are sufficient to account for a high percentage of rapid reform episodes.},
  Annote                   = {ISI Document Delivery No.: 642UA
Times Cited: 0
Cited Reference Count: 44
Samford, Steven
Sage publications inc
Thousand oaks},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/0032329210373071},
  ISBN                     = {0032-3292},
  Keywords                 = {Latin America,Mexico,Peru,Uruguay,fuzzy-set,fuzzy-set analysis,policy,qualitative comparative analysis,trade liberalization,trade policy},
  Language                 = {English}
}

@Article{Sartori1970,
  Title                    = {{Concept misformation in comparative politics}},
  Author                   = {Sartori, Giovanni},
  Journal                  = {American Political Science Review},
  Year                     = {1970},
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {1033--1053},
  Volume                   = {64},

  Annote                   = {Times Cited: 133
Article
English
Cited References Count: 54
I1692},
  Keywords                 = {Amer Political Science Assoc},
  Mendeley-tags            = {Amer Political Science Assoc}
}

@Article{Schedler2012c,
  Title                    = {{The Measurer ’ s Dilemma : Coordination Failures in Cross-National Political Data Collection}},
  Author                   = {Schedler, Andreas},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  Year                     = {2012},
  Number                   = {2},
  Volume                   = {45},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0010414011421308},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schedler - 2011 - The Measurer ’ s Dilemma Coordination Failures in Cross-National Political Data Collection.pdf:pdf}
}


@article{Schneider2019SPSR,
	author = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Rohlfing, Ingo},
	doi = {10.1111/spsr.12382},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider{\_}Rohlfing{\_}19{\_}SPSR.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Swiss Political Science Review},
	number = {3},
	pages = {253--275},
	title = {{Set-theoretic Multimethod Research: The Role of Test Corridors and Conjunctions for Case Selection}},
	volume = {25},
	year = {2019}
}

@article{Schneider2018twostep,
	author = {Schneider, Carsten Q.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0805-7},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider_19_two_step.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Quality {\&} Quantity},
	mendeley-groups = {my_pubs},
	number = {3},
	pages = {1109--1126},
	title = {{Two-Step QCA Revisited: The Necessity of Context Conditions}},
	volume = {53},
	year = {2019}
}

@article{Schneider2018PA,
	author = {Schneider, Carsten Q.},
	doi = {10.1017/pan.2017.45},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider_18_realists_and_idealists_in_qca.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Political Analysis},
	mendeley-groups = {my_pubs},
	number = {2},
	pages = {246--254},
	title = {{Realists and Idealists in QCA}},
	volume = {26},
	year = {2018}
}

@article{SchneiderMaerz2017,
	abstract = {{\textcopyright} 2017, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Conceptualizing the “three pillars of stability”, Gerschewski (2013) proposes legitimation, cooptation and repression as the fundamental principles of lasting autocratic rule. Recent studies put this so-called WZB model to an empirical test and probe the effects these three factors have on regime survival in light of autocratic elections (Lueders and Croissant 2014). Their finding that the WZB model has only limited explanatory power in competitive autocracies has sparked a broader debate about the empirical application of the model as such (Kailitz and Tanneberg 2015; Lueders and Croissant 2015). Our paper contributes to this debate in several ways: (1) rather than analyzing each pillar's effect in isolation, we investigate their combined effect; (2) rather than assuming causal symmetry, we expect to find different explanations for autocratic stability and breakdown, respectively; (3) by focusing on configurations of the pillars, we are in the position to identify distinct types – or “worlds” (Gerschewski 2013) – of (un)stable autocracies. Using the data from Lueders and Croissant (2014) on elections in hegemonic and competitive authoritarian regimes between 1990 and 2009, we apply fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to empirically investigate which, if any, combination of the dimensions of legitimation, cooptation, and repression lead to the survival of autocratic regimes and which ones to their breakdown. Our findings suggest that single pillars in isolation are causally irrelevant; that the WZB model is, indeed, capable of identifying stable autocracy types but it does not perform well in identifying the reasons why autocracies break down; and that the two viable types of autocracies identified by us are meaningfully distinguished by their different legitimation strategies.},
	author = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Maerz, Seraphine F.},
	doi = {10.1007/s12286-017-0332-2},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider_Maerz_17_autocracy.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {18652654},
	journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"{u}}r Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft},
	keywords = {Authoritarianism,Cooptation,Elections,Legitimation,Persistence,Qualitative Comparative Analysis,Repression},
	pages = {213--235},
	title = {{Legitimation, cooptation, and repression and the survival of electoral autocracies}},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2017}
}

@Article{Schneider2014,
  Title                    = {{Forms of welfare capitalism and education-based participatory inequality}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Makszin, Kristin},
  Journal                  = {Socio-Economic Review},
  Year                     = {2014},

  Month                    = mar,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {437--462},
  Volume                   = {12},

  Doi                      = {10.1093/ser/mwu010},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schneider, Makszin - 2014 - Forms of welfare capitalism and education-based participatory inequality.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1475-1461},
  Keywords                 = {and inequality,capitalism,comparative politics,democracy,democratic,economic systems,education,h53 government expenditures and,i24,inequality,jel classification,labour,market institutions,p51 comparative analysis of,qca,welfare programs},
  Url                      = {http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/ser/mwu010}
}

@article{Schneider2016smmrsuff,
	abstract = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for cross-case analyses that works best when complemented with follow-up case studies focusing on the causal quality of the solution and its constitutive terms, the underlying causal mechanisms, and potentially omitted conditions. The anchorage of QCA in set theory demands criteria for follow-up case studies that are dif- ferent from those known from regression-based multimethod research (MMR). Based on the evolving research on set-theoretic MMR, we introduce principles for formalized case selection and causal inference after a fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency. Using an empirical example for illustration, we elaborate on the principles of counterfactuals for intelligible causal inference in the analysis of three different types of cases. Furthermore, we explain how case-based counterfactual inferences on the basis of QCA solutions are related to counterfactuals in the course of processing a truth table in order to produce a solution. We then flesh out two important functions that ideal types play for QCA-based case studies: First, they inform the development of formulas for the choice of the best available cases for with-case analysis and, second, establish the boundaries of generalization of the causal inferences.},
	author = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Rohlfing, Ingo},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124114532446},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider{\_}Rohlfing{\_}16{\_}sufficiency{\_}PRINT.pdf:pdf;:Users/carstenschneider/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schneider, Rohlfing - 2016 - Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-set QCA on Sufficiency Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0049-1241},
	journal = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
	mendeley-groups = {my{\_}pubs},
	month = {may},
	number = {3},
	pages = {526--568},
	title = {{Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-set QCA on Sufficiency: Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference}},
	url = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124114532446},
	volume = {45},
	year = {2016}
}


@Article{Schneider2014SMR,
  author   = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Rohlfing, Ingo},
  title    = {{Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-set QCA on Sufficiency: Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference}},
  journal  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  year     = {2014},
  month    = may,
  abstract = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for cross-case analyses that works best when complemented with follow-up case studies focusing on the causal quality of the solution and its constitutive terms, the underlying causal mechanisms, and potentially omitted conditions. The anchorage of QCA in set theory demands criteria for follow-up case studies that are dif- ferent from those known from regression-based multimethod research (MMR). Based on the evolving research on set-theoretic MMR, we introduce principles for formalized case selection and causal inference after a fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency. Using an empirical example for illustration, we elaborate on the principles of counterfactuals for intelligible causal inference in the analysis of three different types of cases. Furthermore, we explain how case-based counterfactual inferences on the basis of QCA solutions are related to counterfactuals in the course of processing a truth table in order to produce a solution. We then flesh out two important functions that ideal types play for QCA-based case studies: First, they inform the development of formulas for the choice of the best available cases for with-case analysis and, second, establish the boundaries of generalization of the causal inferences.},
  doi      = {10.1177/0049124114532446},
  file     = {:D$\backslash$:/My Documents/Dropbox/my papers/Schneider\_Rohlfing\_14\_sufficiency\_onlinefirst.pdf:pdf},
  issn     = {0049-1241},
  url      = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124114532446},
}

@Article{Schneider2013SMR,
  author  = {Schneider, Carsten Q and Rohlfing, Ingo},
  title   = {Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research},
  journal = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  year    = {2013},
  volume  = {42},
  number  = {4},
  pages   = {559-597},
}

@Article{Schneider2013a,
  Title                    = {{Doing Justice to Logical Remainders in QCA: Moving beyond the Standard Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Wagemann, Claudius},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {211--220},
  Volume                   = {66},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schneider, Wagemann - 2013 - Doing Justice to Logical Remainders in QCA Moving beyond the Standard Analysis.pdf:pdf}
}

@Article{Schneider2013b,
  Title                    = {{Fuzzy Sets are Sets — A Reply to Goertz and Mahoney}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q and Wagemann, Claudius},
  Journal                  = {Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, Newsletter},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {Spring},
  Pages                    = {19--22},
  Volume                   = {11},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schneider, Wagemann - 2013 - Fuzzy Sets are Sets — A Reply to Goertz and Mahoney.pdf:pdf}
}

@Article{Schneider2013c,
  Title                    = {{Are We All Set ?}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q and Wagemann, Claudius},
  Journal                  = {Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, Newsletter},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {Spring},
  Pages                    = {5--8},
  Volume                   = {11},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schneider, Wagemann - 2013 - Are We All Set.pdf:pdf}
}

@Book{Schneider2012book,
  title     = {{Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  year      = {2012},
  author    = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Wagemann, Claudius},
  address   = {Cambridge},
}

@Article{Schneider2010,
  Title                    = {{Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q. and Wagemann, Claudius},
  Journal                  = {Comparative Sociology},
  Year                     = {2010},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {397--418},
  Volume                   = {9},

  Doi                      = {10.1163/156913210X12493538729793},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schneider, Wagemann - 2010 - Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {15691322},
  Keywords                 = {causal complexity,comparative,comparative methods,data analysis,fuzzy sets,good practice,has drawn,over the last years,qca,qualitative comparative analysis,research approach,set-theoretic relations,suffi ciency and necessity},
  Url                      = {http://openurl.ingenta.com/content/xref?genre=article\&issn=1569-1322\&volume=9\&issue=3\&spage=376}
}

@article{SchneiderSchulze2010,
	author = {Schneider, Martin R and Schulze-Bentrop, Conrad and Paunescu, Mihai},
	doi = {10.1057/jibs.2009.36},
	file = {:E\:/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Schneider_etal_10_HighTechFirms_fuzzy.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0047-2506},
	journal = {Journal of International Business Studies},
	keywords = {30 october 2007,8 february 2009,capitalism,comparative advantage,comparative analysis,institutional context,qualitative,received,revised},
	month = {aug},
	number = {2},
	pages = {246--266},
	publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
	title = {{Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance}},
	url = {http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/10.1057/jibs.2009.36},
	volume = {41},
	year = {2010}
}

@Book{Schneider2008,
  Title                    = {{The consolidation of democracy: Comparing Europe and Latin America}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q},
  Publisher                = {Routledge},
  Year                     = {2008},

  Address                  = {London}
}

@Article{Schneider2006b,
  Title                    = {{Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy}},
  Author                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q and Wagemann, Claudius},
  Journal                  = {European Journal of Political Research},
  Year                     = {2006},
  Number                   = {5},
  Pages                    = {751--786},
  Volume                   = {45},

  Annote                   = {Record Number: 8590}
}

@book{Seawright2016,
	address = {Cambridge},
	author = {Seawright, Jason},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/paperbooks of others/Seawright_2016_MMR.pdf:pdf},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	title = {{Multi-Method Social Science. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools}},
	year = {2016}
}


@Article{SeawrightGerring2008,
  Title                    = {{Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options}},
  Author                   = {Seawright, Jason and Gerring, John},
  Journal                  = {Political Research Quarterly},
  Year                     = {2008},
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {294--308},
  Volume                   = {61},

  Abstract                 = {How can scholars select cases from a large universe for in-depth case study analysis? Random sampling is not typically a viable approach when the total number of cases to be selected is small. Hence attention to purposive modes of sampling is needed. Yet, while the existing qualitative literature on case selection offers a wide range of suggestions for case selection, most techniques discussed require in-depth familiarity of each case. Seven case selection procedures are considered, each of which facilitates a different strategy for within-case analysis. The case selection procedures considered focus on typical, diverse, extreme, deviant, influential, most similar, and most different cases. For each case selection procedure, quantitative approaches are discussed that meet the goals of the approach, while still requiring information that can reasonably be gathered for a large number of cases. CR - Copyright \&\#169; 2008 University of Utah},
  Annote                   = {TY - JOUR
M1 - ArticleType: primary\_article / Full publication date: Jun., 2008 / Copyright \^{A}© 2008 University of Utah},
  ISBN                     = {10659129},
  Publisher                = {Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of Utah}
}

@Book{Segura-Ubiergo2007,
  Title                    = {{The political economy of the welfare state in Latin America: globalization, democracy, and development}},
  Author                   = {Segura-Ubiergo, Alex},
  Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
  Year                     = {2007},

  Address                  = {Cambridge},

  Annote                   = {2006037428
Alex Segura-Ubiergo.
ill. ; 24 cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 281-304) and index.
Introduction -- The historical evolution of welfare systems in Latin America -- Theoretical framework and main hypotheses -- Determinants of social spending in Latin America -- Chile : a classic Latin American welfare state under authoritarian stress (1973-1989) and democratic reinvention (1990-2000) -- Costa Rica : globalization, gradual reform, and the politics of compensation, 1973-2002 -- Peru : political instability, regime change and late economic reform in a (non)-welfare state, 1973-2000 -- Conclusion : summary and final reflections on the sustainability and effectiveness of Latin American welfare systems.},
  ISBN                     = {9780521871112 (hardback) 0521871115 (hardback)},
  Keywords                 = {Democratization Latin America.,Globalization Economic aspects Latin America.,Latin America Politics and government.,Public welfare Latin America.,Welfare state Latin America Case studies.,Welfare state Latin America.},
  Pages                    = {xix, 320 p.},
  Pmid                     = {14628194}
}

@book{shanEvidentialPluralismSocial2023a,
  title = {Evidential {{Pluralism}} in the {{Social Sciences}}},
  author = {Shan, Yafeng and Williamson, Jon},
  year = {2023},
  publisher = {{Routledge}},
  abstract = {This volume contends that Evidential Pluralism - an account of the epistemology of causation, which maintains that in order to establish a causal claim one needs to establish the existence of a correlation and the existence of a mechanism - can be fruitfully applied to the social sciences. Through case studies in sociology, economics, political science and law, it advances new philosophical foundations for causal enquiry in the social sciences. The book provides an account of how to establish an},
  isbn = {978-0-367-69722-8},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/ZoteroPDF/shan_williamson_2023_evidential_pluralism_in_the_social_sciences2.pdf}
}

@Article{Skaaning2011,
  Title                    = {{Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-set and Fuzzy-set QCA Results}},
  Author                   = {Skaaning, Svend-Erik},
  Journal                  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  Year                     = {2011},

  Month                    = apr,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {391--408},
  Volume                   = {40},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/0049124111404818},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Skaaning - 2011 - Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-set and Fuzzy-set QCA Results.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0049-1241},
  Keywords                 = {configurational comparative methods,crisp-set,fuzzy-set,qca results},
  Url                      = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124111404818}
}

@Book{Steiner2004,
  Title                    = {{Deliberative politics in action. analyzing parliamentary discourse}},
  Author                   = {Steiner, J\"{o}rg and B\"{a}chtiger, Andre and Sp\"{o}rndli, Markus and Steenbergen, Marco R},
  Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
  Year                     = {2004},

  Address                  = {Cambridge}
}

@article{Stevens2016,
	author = {Stevens, Alex},
	doi = {10.1177/0020715216665663},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Stevens{\_}16{\_}corruption{\_}fsQCA.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {17452554},
	journal = {International Journal of Comparative Sociology},
	keywords = {Comparison,QCA,corruption,criminology,democracy,development,inequality,values},
	number = {4},
	pages = {183--206},
	title = {{Configurations of corruption: A cross-national qualitative comparative analysis of levels of perceived corruption}},
	volume = {57},
	year = {2016}
}

@Article{Suzuki2011,
  Title                    = {{Escalation of interstate crises of conflictual dyads: Greece-Turkey and India-Pakistan}},
  Author                   = {Suzuki, A and Loizides, N},
  Journal                  = {Cooperation and Conflict},
  Year                     = {2011},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {21--39},
  Volume                   = {46},

  Annote                   = {Times Cited: 1
Suzuki, Akisato Loizides, Neophytos},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/0010836710396770},
  ISBN                     = {0010-8367},
  Keywords                 = {case study,pathway},
  Mendeley-tags            = {pathway}
}

@Article{Thiem2014,
  Title                    = {{Parameters of fit and intermediate solutions in multi-value Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik},
  Journal                  = {Quality {\&} Quantity},
  Year                     = {2014},

  Month                    = mar,

  Doi                      = {10.1007/s11135-014-0015-x},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem - 2014 - Parameters of fit and intermediate solutions in multi-value Qualitative Comparative Analysis.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0033-5177},
  Keywords                 = {configurational comparative methods,consistency,coverage,csqca,fsqca,mvqca,qca,qualitative comparative analysis},
  Url                      = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-014-0015-x}
}

@article{Thiem2014generalized,
	author = {Thiem, Alrik},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Thiem_13_unified_framework_published.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
	number = {2},
	pages = {313--337},
	title = {{Unifying Configurational Comparative Methodology: Generalized-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
	volume = {43},
	year = {2014}
}

@Article{Thiem2013c,
  Title                    = {{Clearly Crisp, and Not Fuzzy: A Reassessment of the (Putative) Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik},
  Journal                  = {Field Methods},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = mar,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {197--207},
  Volume                   = {25},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/1525822X13478135},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem - 2013 - Clearly Crisp, and Not Fuzzy A Reassessment of the (Putative) Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1525-822X},
  Url                      = {http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1525822X13478135}
}

@Article{Thiem2013g,
  Title                    = {{Membership function sensitivity of descriptive statistics in fuzzy-set relations}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik},
  Journal                  = {International Journal of Social Research Methodology},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = jun,
  Number                   = {January 2014},
  Pages                    = {1--18},

  Doi                      = {10.1080/13645579.2013.806118},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem - 2013 - Membership function sensitivity of descriptive statistics in fuzzy-set relations.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1364-5579},
  Url                      = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645579.2013.806118}
}

@Unpublished{Thiem2012,
  Title                    = {{What mvQCA Is And What It Is Not}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik},
  Year                     = {2012},

  Booktitle                = {America},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem - 2012 - What mvQCA Is And What It Is Not.pdf:pdf}
}

@Unpublished{Thiem2010,
  Title                    = {{Set-Relational Fit and the Formulation of Transformational Rules in fsQCA}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik},
  Year                     = {2010},

  Booktitle                = {City},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem - 2010 - Set-Relational Fit and the Formulation of Transformational Rules in fsQCA(2).pdf:pdf},
  Institution              = {COMPASSS Working Paper 2010-61},
  Pages                    = {1--23}
}

@Article{Thiem2013b,
  Title                    = {{Boolean Minimization in Social Science Research: A Review of Current Software for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, A. and Dusa, A.},
  Journal                  = {Social Science Computer Review},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = mar,
  Number                   = {4},
  Pages                    = {505--521},
  Volume                   = {31},

  Abstract                 = {Besides an increase in the number of empirical applications, the widening landscape of tailored computer programs attests to the success of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a social research method. Users now have the choice between three graphical user interface (GUI) and three command line interface (CLI) solutions. In addition to different functional foci, each program possesses several technical particularities, some of which the vast majority of end users remain unaware of. Since these particularities may influence results and in turn substantive conclusions, this review is a timely undertaking. More specifically, we compare the two most common GUIs fs/QCA and Tosmana as well as the CLI QCA. By reanalyzing data from a sociological study on rural grassroots associations in Norway, major differences and similarities with respect to truth table construction, minimization algorithms, and prime implicant chart management are illustrated},
  Doi                      = {10.1177/0894439313478999},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem, Dusa - 2013 - Boolean Minimization in Social Science Research A Review of Current Software for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {0894-4393},
  Keywords                 = {1991,1993,about two decades ago,blank,boolean minimization,brent,computing,fs,heise,journal took stock of,of sociology,qca,qualitative comparative analysis,technology had made its,the extent to which,three articles in this,tosmana,way into the discipline},
  Url                      = {http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0894439313478999}
}

@Article{Thiem2013e,
  Title                    = {{QCA: A Package for Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik and Dusa, Adrian},
  Journal                  = {The R Journal},
  Year                     = {2013},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {87--97},
  Volume                   = {5},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem, Dusa - 2013 - QCA A Package for Qualitative Comparative Analysis.pdf:pdf}
}

@Book{Thiem2013f,
  Title                    = {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis with R: A User’s Guide}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik and Dusa, Adrian},
  Publisher                = {Springer},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Address                  = {New York}
}

@Unpublished{Thiem2013,
  Title                    = {{Mill’s Methods, Induction, Missing Data and Measurement Error in Qualitative Comparative Analysis : An Extended Comment on Hug ( 2013 )}},
  Author                   = {Thiem, Alrik and Ragin, Charles},
  Year                     = {2013},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Thiem, Ragin - 2013 - Mill’s Methods, Induction, Missing Data and Measurement Error in Qualitative Comparative Analysis An Extended Com.pdf:pdf}
}

@article{thomannegepaustyanApproachesQualitativeComparative2022,
	title = {Approaches to {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis}} and Good Practices: {{A}} Systematic Review},
	shorttitle = {Approaches to {{Qualitative Comparative Analysis}} and Good Practices},
	author = {Thomann, Eva and Ege, J{\"o}rn and Paustyan, Ekaterina},
	year = {2022},
	month = sep,
	journal = {Swiss Political Science Review},
	volume = {28},
	number = {3},
	pages = {557--580},
	issn = {1424-7755, 1662-6370},
	doi = {10.1111/spsr.12503},
	abstract = {The Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) methodology has evolved remarkably in social science research. Simultaneously, the use of QCA too often lags behind methodological recommendations of good practice. Improper use is a serious obstacle for QCA to enrich the social science -methodology toolkit. We explore whether the coherence of analytic approaches can help us understand good practices in applied QCA by performing a systematic review of 86 QCA studies. Although adherence to technical GPs has improved over time, we find a high prevalence of incoherent, ``hybrid'' approaches. As the hybridity of a study increases, its adherence to good practices decreases. The case-\-oriented, realist, exploratory QCA studies do not consistently follow recommendations of good practice. Instead, the only consistently good-\-practice approach is case-\-oriented, realist, but explicitly theory-\-evaluating. We conclude that consistently aligning methodological choice with the underlying analytic approach and the use of theory can help foster good practices in applied QCA.},
	langid = {english},
	annotation = {1 citations (Crossref) [2022-11-26]},
	file = {E\:\\Dropbox\\ZoteroPDF\\thomann_2022_approaches_to_qualitative_comparative_analysis_and_good_practices_-_a_systematic.pdf}
}

@inbook{thomannegeQualitativeComparativeAnalysis2020,
	title = {Qualitative {{Comparative Analysis}} ({{QCA}}) in {{Public Administration}}},
	booktitle = {Oxford {{Research Encyclopedia}} of {{Politics}}},
	author = {Thomann, Eva and Ege, J{\"o}rn},
	year = {2020},
	publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
	doi = {10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1444},
	abstract = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is increasingly establishing itself as a method in social research. QCA is a set-theoretic, truth-table-based method that identifies complex combinations of conditions (configurations) that are necessary and/or sufficient for an outcome. An advantage of QCA is that it models the complexity of social phenomena by accounting for conjunctural, asymmetric, and equifinal patterns. Accordingly, the method does not assume isolated net effects of single variables but recognizes that the effect of a single condition (that is, an explanatory factor) often unfolds only in combination with other conditions. Moreover, QCA acknowledges that the occurrence of a phenomenon can have a different explanation from its non-occurrence. Finally, QCA allows for different, mutually non-exclusive explanations of the same phenomenon. QCA is not only a technique; there is a diversity of approaches to how it can be implemented before, during and after the ``technical moment,'' depending on the analytic goals related to contributing to theory, engaging with cases, and the approach to explanation.             Particularly since 2012, an increasing number of scholars have turned to using QCA to investigate public administrations. Even though the boundaries of Public Administration (PA) as an academic discipline are difficult to determine, it can be defined as an intellectual forum for those who want to understand both public administrations as organizations and their relationships to political, economic, and societal actors\textemdash especially in the adoption and implementation of public policies. Owing to its fragmented nature, there has been a long-lasting debate about the methodological sophistication and appropriateness of different comparative methods. In particular, the high complexity and strong context dependencies of causal patterns challenge theory-building and empirical analysis in Public Administration. Moreover, administrative settings are often characterized by relatively low numbers of cases for comparison, as well as strongly multilevel empirical settings. QCA as a technique allows for context-sensitive analyses that take into account this complexity.             Against this background, it is not surprising that applications of QCA have become more widespread among scholars of Public Administration. A systematic review of articles using QCA published in the major Public Administration journals shows that the use of QCA started in mid-2000s and then grew exponentially. The review shows that, especially in two thematic areas, QCA has high analytical value and may (alongside traditional methodological approaches) help improve theories and methods of PA. The first area is the study of organizational decision-making and the role of bureaucrats during the adoption and implementation of public policies and service delivery. The second area where QCA has great merits is in explaining different features of public organizations. Especially in evaluation research where the aim is to investigate performance of various kinds (especially effectiveness in terms of both policy and management), QCA is a useful analytical tool to model these highly context-dependent relationships. The QCA method is constantly evolving. The development of good practices for different QCA approaches as well as several methodological innovations and software improvements increases its potential benefits for the future of Public Administration research.},
	collaborator = {Thomann, Eva and Ege, J{\"o}rn},
	isbn = {978-0-19-022863-7},
	langid = {english},
	file = {E\:\\Dropbox\\ZoteroPDF\\thomann_ege_2020_qualitative_comparative_analysis_(qca)_in_public_administration.pdf}
}
@article{ThomannMaggetti2020,
	abstract = {Recent years have witnessed a host of innovations for conducting research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Concurrently, important issues surrounding its uses have been highlighted. In this article, we seek to help users design QCA studies. We argue that establishing inference with QCA involves three intertwined design components: first, clarifying the question of external validity; second, ensuring internal validity; and third, explicitly adopting a specific mode of reasoning. We identify several emerging approaches to QCA rather than just one. Some approaches emphasize case knowledge, while others are condition oriented. Approaches emphasize either substantively interpretable or redundancy-free explanations, and some designs apply an inductive/explorative mode of reasoning, while others integrate deductive elements. Based on extant literature, we discuss issues surrounding inference with QCA and the tools available under different approaches to address these issues. We specify trade-offs and...},
	author = {Thomann, Eva and Maggetti, Martino},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124117729700},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Thomann_Maggetti_17_QCA_uses.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0049-1241},
	journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
	keywords = {inference,qualitative comparative analysis (QCA),research design,set-theoretic methods,validity},
	number = {2},
	pages = {356--386},
	title = {{Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tool}},
	url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124117729700},
	volume = {49},
	year = {2020}
}

@article{Toth2017,
	abstract = {Fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) can help researchers to address causal complexity, especially in relation to the interactions between different conditions leading to the outcome in question. FsQCA helps investigate how alternative solutions (different configurations of conditions) make up the outcome, and considers the asymmetrical nature of social phenomena. An important challenge that researchers often face when they apply fsQCA to qualitative data is the lack of distinct and operationalizable anchor points for fuzzy set calibration. This study offers the Generic Membership Evaluation Template (GMET) to support the decision making about assigning fuzzy set values to conditions, and therefore improves the transparency of the qualitative calibration process. This paper aims to highlight why and how fsQCA can be carried out to obtain a more in-depth understanding of complex problems using qualitative data, to identify some core method issues involved in this analytical process, and to develop a conceptual and empirical framework that helps in managing some methodological issues, with special regard to the calibration process. For illustration of the method we scrutinize ways in which the customer firm can achieve attractiveness in the eyes of the supplier. Our study explores configurations leading to the Relational Attractiveness of the Customer (RAC) based on 28 in-depth interviews with senior managers on the supplier side. In the interest of methodological reflections and parsimony, it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the principles of fsQCA.},
	author = {T{\'{o}}th, Zs{\'{o}}fia and Henneberg, Stephan C. and Naud{\'{e}}, Peter},
	doi = {10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.10.008},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/T{\'{o}}th, Henneberg, Naud{\'{e}} - 2017 - Addressing the ‘Qualitative' in fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis The Generic Membership.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {00198501},
	journal = {Industrial Marketing Management},
	keywords = {Calibration,FsQCA,Generic Membership Evaluation Template,Qualitative data analysis},
	pages = {192--204},
	title = {{Addressing the ‘Qualitative' in fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The Generic Membership Evaluation Template}},
	volume = {63},
	year = {2017}
}

@Book{vanEvera1997,
  title     = {Guide to methods for students of political science},
  publisher = {Cornell University Press},
  year      = {1997},
  author    = {Van Evera, Stephen},
  address   = {Ithaca},
  note      = {Stephen Van Evera. 21 cm.},
  keywords  = {Political science Methodology.},
  owner     = {rohlfing},
  pages     = {vi, 136 p.},
  timestamp = {2016.04.04},
}

@article{VerweijVis2020,
	author = {Verweij, Stefan and Vis, Barbara},
	doi = {10.1017/S1755773920000375},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Verweij{\_}Vis{\_}20{\_}QCA{\_}time.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {European Political Science Review},
	keywords = {different time periods,fuzzy-set ideal type analysis,multiple qcas,multiple time periods,qualitative comparative analysis,single qca,tracking configurations},
	pages = {1--17},
	title = {{Three strategies to track configurations over time with Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
	year = {2020}
}

@Article{Vink2013,
  Title                    = {{Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA: Response to Thiem}},
  Author                   = {Vink, Maarten P. and van Vliet, Olaf},
  Journal                  = {Field Methods},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Month                    = mar,
  Number                   = {2},
  Pages                    = {208--213},
  Volume                   = {25},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/1525822X13478134},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Vink, van Vliet - 2013 - Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA Response to Thiem.pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1525-822X},
  Url                      = {http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1525822X13478134}
}

@Article{Vink2009c,
  Title                    = {{Not Quite Crisp, Not Yet Fuzzy? Assessing the Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA}},
  Author                   = {Vink, M. P. and van Vliet, O.},
  Journal                  = {Field Methods},
  Year                     = {2009},

  Month                    = jun,
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {265--289},
  Volume                   = {21},

  Doi                      = {10.1177/1525822X09332633},
  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Vink, van Vliet - 2009 - Not Quite Crisp, Not Yet Fuzzy Assessing the Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA.pdf:pdf;:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Vink, van Vliet - 2009 - Not Quite Crisp, Not Yet Fuzzy Assessing the Potentials and Pitfalls of Multi-value QCA(2).pdf:pdf},
  ISSN                     = {1525-822X},
  Url                      = {http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1525822X09332633}
}

@article{VisDul2016,
	author = {Vis, B. and Dul, J.},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124115626179},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Vis_Dul_16_necessity_NCA.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0049-1241},
	journal = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
	title = {{Analyzing Relationships of Necessity Not Just in Kind But Also in Degree: Complementing fsQCA With NCA}},
	url = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124115626179},
	year = {2016}
}

@article{WagemannSchneider2015,
	author = {Wagemann, Claudius and Schneider, Carsten Q.},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/my papers/Wagemann{\_}Schneider{\_}2015{\_}Transparency{\_}QMMR{\_}13{\_}1.pdf:pdf},
	journal = {Qualitative {\&} Multi-Method Research Newsletter},
	mendeley-groups = {my{\_}pubs},
	number = {1},
	pages = {38--42},
	title = {{Transparency Standards in Qualitative Comparative Analysis}},
	volume = {13},
	year = {2015}
}

@Unpublished{Wagemann2007b,
  Title                    = {{Standards of good practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and fuzzy sets}},
  Author                   = {Wagemann, Claudius},
  Year                     = {2007},

  Address                  = {Compasss Working Paper, WP2007-51},
  Annote                   = {Record ID: 11530},
  Editor                   = {Schneider, Carsten Q}
}

@InCollection{Wagemann2003a,
  Title                    = {{Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA): ein Zwei-Stufen-Modul}},
  Author                   = {Wagemann, Claudius and Schneider, Carsten Q and Pickel, Susanne},
  Publisher                = {Westdeutscher Verlag},
  Year                     = {2003},

  Address                  = {Wiesbaden},
  Editor                   = {Pickel, Gert and Lauth, Hans-Joachim and Jahn, Detlef},
  Pages                    = {105--134},

  Annote                   = {9460}
}

@Article{Wedeen2014,
  Title                    = {{Qualitative {\&} Multi-Method Research Newsletter}},
  Author                   = {Wedeen, Lisa and Collier, David},
  Year                     = {2014},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {1--52},
  Volume                   = {12},

  File                     = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Wedeen, Collier - 2014 - Qualitative \& multi-Method Research Newsletter.pdf:pdf}
}

@article{WellerBarnes2016,
	author = {Weller, Nicholas and Barnes, Jeb},
	doi = {10.1177/0049124114544420},
	file = {:Users/carstenschneider/Dropbox/papers of others (Harvard)/Barnes_Weller_14_pathways_causal.pdf:pdf},
	issn = {0049-1241},
	journal = {Sociological Methods \& Research},
	month = {aug},
	number = {3},
	pages = {424--457},
	title = {{Pathway Analysis and the Search for Causal Mechanisms}},
	url = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049124114544420},
	volume = {45},
	year = {2016}
}

@Book{Woodward2003,
  Title                    = {{Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation}},
  Author                   = {Woodward, James},
  Publisher                = {Oxford University Press},
  Year                     = {2003},

  Address                  = {New York},

  Booktitle                = {Oxford studies in philosophy of science},
  ISBN                     = {0195155270},
  Pages                    = {vi, 410 p.}
}

@Article{Zadeh1965,
  Title                    = {Fuzzy Sets},
  Author                   = {Zadeh, Lofti A.},
  Journal                  = {Information and Control},
  Year                     = {1965},
  Note                     = {65679
Times Cited:12564
Cited References Count:4},
  Number                   = {3},
  Pages                    = {338-353},
  Volume                   = {8},

  Owner                    = {rohlfing},
  Timestamp                = {2015.09.23}
}

@Article{Halpern2015,
  author   = {Halpern, Joseph Y. and Hitchcock, Christopher},
  title    = {Graded Causation and Defaults},
  journal  = {The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science},
  year     = {2015},
  volume   = {66},
  number   = {2},
  pages    = {413-457},
  abstract = {Recent work in psychology and experimental philosophy has shown that judgments of actual causation are often influenced by consideration of defaults, typicality, and normality. A number of philosophers and computer scientists have also suggested that an appeal to such factors can help deal with problems facing existing accounts of actual causation. This article develops a flexible formal framework for incorporating defaults, typicality, and normality into an account of actual causation. The resulting account takes actual causation to be both graded and comparative. We then show how our account would handle a number of standard cases. 1?Introduction2?Causal Models3?The HP Definition of Actual Causation4?The Problem of Isomorphism5?Defaults, Typicality, and Normality6?Extended Causal Models7?Examples ??7.1?Omissions??7.2?Knobe effects??7.3?Causes versus background conditions??7.4?Bogus prevention??7.5?Causal chains??7.6?Legal doctrines of intervening causes??7.7?Pre-emption and short circuits 8?Conclusion},
}

@Article{Grauvogel2014EJPR,
  author   = {Grauvogel, Julia and von Soest, Christian},
  title    = {Claims to legitimacy count: Why sanctions fail to instigate democratisation in authoritarian regimes},
  journal  = {European Journal of Political Research},
  year     = {2014},
  volume   = {53},
  number   = {4},
  pages    = {635-653},
  abstract = {International sanctions are one of the most commonly used tools to instigate democratisation in the post-Cold War era. However, despite long-term sanction pressure by the European Union, the United States and/or the United Nations, non-democratic rule has proven to be extremely persistent. Which domestic and international factors account for the regimes' ability to resist external pressure? Based on a new global dataset on sanctions from 1990 to 2011, the results of a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) provide new insights for the research on sanctions and on authoritarian regimes. Most significantly, sanctions strengthen authoritarian rule if the regime manages to incorporate their existence into its legitimation strategy. Such an unintended ?rally-round-the-flag? effect occurs where sanctions are imposed on regimes that possess strong claims to legitimacy and have only limited economic and societal linkages to the sender of sanctions.},
  keywords = {sanctions democratisation claims to legitimacy fsQCA authoritarian regimes},
}

@Article{Thiem2014ER,
  author   = {Thiem, Alrik},
  title    = {Navigating the Complexities of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Case Numbers, Necessity Relations, and Model Ambiguities},
  journal  = {Evaluation Review},
  year     = {2014},
  volume   = {38},
  number   = {6},
  pages    = {487-513},
  abstract = {Background: In recent years, the method of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) has been enjoying increasing levels of popularity in evaluation and directly neighboring fields. Its holistic approach to causal data analysis resonates with researchers whose theories posit complex conjunctions of conditions and events. However, due to QCA?s relative immaturity, some of its technicalities and objectives have not yet been well understood.Objectives: In this article, I seek to raise awareness of six pitfalls of employing QCA with regard to the following three central aspects: case numbers, necessity relations, and model ambiguities. Most importantly, I argue that case numbers are irrelevant to the methodological choice of QCA or any of its variants, that necessity is not as simple a concept as it has been suggested by many methodologists, and that doubt must be cast on the determinacy of virtually all results presented in past QCA research.Method: By means of empirical examples from published articles, I explain the background of these pitfalls and introduce appropriate procedures, partly with reference to current software, that help avoid them.Conclusion: QCA carries great potential for scholars in evaluation and directly neighboring areas interested in the analysis of complex dependencies in configurational data. If users beware of the pitfalls introduced in this article, and if they avoid mechanistic adherence to doubtful ?standards of good practice? at this stage of development, then research with QCA will gain in quality, as a result of which a more solid foundation for cumulative knowledge generation and well-informed policy decisions will also be created.},
}

@Article{Gerring2007CPS,
  author   = {Gerring, John},
  title    = {Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?},
  journal  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  year     = {2007},
  volume   = {40},
  number   = {3},
  pages    = {231-253},
  note     = {Times Cited: 0 Article English Cited References Count: 59 138qy},
  abstract = {Case study researchers use diverse methods to select their cases, a matter that has elicited considerable comment and no little consternation. Of all these methods, perhaps the most controversial is the crucial-case method, first proposed by Harry Eckstein several decades ago. Since Eckstein's influential essay, the crucial-case approach has been used in a multitude of studies across several social science disciplines and has come to be recognized as a staple of the case study method. Yet the idea of any single case playing a crucial (or critical) role is not widely accepted. In this article, the method of the crucial case is explored, and a limited defense (somewhat less expansive than that envisioned by Eckstein) of that method is undertaken. A second method of case-selection, closely associated with the logic of the crucial case, is introduced: the pathway case.},
  keywords = {case study pathway case small n analysis qualitative methods crucial case democracy conflict elections inference politics strategy},
}

@Article{Munck2007CPS,
  author   = {Munck, Gerardo L. and Snyder, Richard},
  title    = {Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals},
  journal  = {Comparative Political Studies},
  year     = {2007},
  volume   = {40},
  number   = {1},
  pages    = {5-31},
  abstract = {This article contributes to ongoing debates about the direction of comparative politics through an analysis of new data on the scope, objectives, and methods of research in the field. The results of the analysis are as follows. Comparative politics is a rich and diverse field that cannot be accurately characterized on the basis of just one dimension or even summarized in simple terms. In turn, the tendency to frame choices about the direction of the field in terms of a stark alternative between an old area studies approach and a new economic approach relies on largely unsupported assumptions. It is therefore advisable to focus on problematic methodological practices that, as this study shows, are widespread in comparative research and thus pose serious impediments to the production of knowledge.},
}


@Book{King1994book,
  title     = {Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  year      = {1994},
  author    = {King, Gary and Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney},
  address   = {Princeton},
  note      = {Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba. ill. ; 24 cm.},
  keywords  = {Social sciences Methodology. Social sciences Research. Inference. Ciencias sociales Investigaci?n Inferencia Sociologia (pesquisa e metodologia) Social sciences Research},
  pages     = {xi, 245 p.},
}

@Article{Gerring2004APSR,
  author  = {Gerring, John},
  title   = {What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?},
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  year    = {2004},
  volume  = {98},
  number  = {2},
  pages   = {341-354},
}

@Article{Baumgartner2013FM,
  author   = {Baumgartner, Michael},
  title    = {Detecting Causal Chains in Small-n Data},
  journal  = {Field Methods},
  year     = {2013},
  volume   = {25},
  number   = {1},
  pages    = {3-24},
  abstract = {The first part of this article shows that qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)?also in its most recent form as in Ragin (2008)?does not correctly analyze data generated by causal chains. The incorrect modeling of data originating from chains essentially stems from QCA?s reliance on Quine-McCluskey optimization to eliminate redundancies from sufficient and necessary conditions. Baumgartner (2009a, 2009b) has introduced a Boolean methodology, termed coincidence analysis (CNA), which is related to QCA, yet, contrary to the latter, does not eliminate redundancies by means of Quine-McCluskey optimization. The second part of the article applies CNA to chain-generated data. It turns out that CNA successfully detects causal chains in small- data.},
}

@Article{Sen2018PP,
  author  = {Sen, Sedef and Barry, Colin M},
  title   = {Economic globalization and the economic policy positions of parties},
  journal = {Party Politics},
  year    = {2018},
  volume  = {advance access},
  number  = {0},
  pages   = {1354068818761179},
  doi     = {10.1177/1354068818761179},
  type    = {Journal Article},
  url     = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354068818761179},
}

@Article{Beach2016SMR,
  author   = {Beach, Derek and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun},
  title    = {Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms},
  journal  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  year     = {2018},
  volume = {47},
  number = {4},
  pages = {837--871},
  issn = {0049-1241, 1552-8294},
  doi = {10.1177/0049124115622510},
  abstract = {The last decade has witnessed resurgence in the interest in studying the causal mechanisms linking causes and effects. This article games through the methodological consequences that adopting a systems understanding of mechanisms has for what types of cases we should select when using in-depth case study methods like process tracing. The article proceeds in three steps. We first expose the assumptions that underpin the study of causal mechanisms as systems that have methodological implications for case selection. In particular, we take as our point of departure the case-based position, where: causation is viewed in deterministic and asymmetric terms, the focus is ensuring causal homogeneity in case-based research to enable cross-case inferences to be made, and finally where mechanisms are understood as more than just intervening variables but instead a system of interacting parts that transfers causal forces from causes to outcomes. We then develop a set of case selection guidelines that are in methodological alignment with these underlying assumptions. We then develop guidelines for research where the mechanism is the primary focus, contending that only typical cases where both X, Y, and the requisite contextual conditions are present should be selected. We compare our guidelines with the existing, finding that practices like selecting most/least-likely cases are not compatible with the underlying assumptions of tracing mechanisms. We then present guidelines for deviant cases, focusing on tracing mechanisms until they breakdown as a tool to shed light on omitted contextual and/or causal conditions.},
}

@Book{Beach2016book,
  title     = {Causal Case Studies: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing},
  publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
  year      = {2016},
  author    = {Beach, Derek and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun},
  address   = {Michigan},
}

@Book{Blatter2012book,
  title     = {{Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research}},
  publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  year      = {2012},
  author    = {Blatter, Joachim and Haverland, Markus},
  address   = {Basingstoke},
}

@Book{Bennett2014book,
  title     = {{Process Tracing in the Social Sciences: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool}},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  year      = {2014},
  author    = {Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey},
  address   = {Cambridge},
}

@Article{Thiem2018QCApro,
  author  = {Thiem, Alrik},
  title   = {QCApro: Advanced Functionality for Performing and Evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package Version 1.1-2},
  journal = {http://www.alrik-thiem.net/software/},
  year    = {2018},
}

@Article{Dessler1991ISQ,
  author   = {Dessler, David},
  title    = {Beyond Correlations: Toward a Causal Theory of War},
  journal  = {International Studies Quarterly},
  year     = {1991},
  volume   = {35},
  number   = {3},
  pages    = {337-355},
  abstract = {The modern scientific study of war relies primarily on correlational studies aimed to uncover the recurring patterns of actions, events, and conditions associated with interstate conflict. The goal is an explanatory theory of war grounded in reproducible evidence, free of the subjective biases that have plagued traditional analysis. But to date the myriad findings within the correlational project remain unintegrated and the promise of a scientific breakthrough unfulfilled. This article suggests that the problem of nonintegration in the study of war is rooted at least partly in an overly restrictive epistemology that cannot ground causal theory. The argument summarizes an understanding of integrative causal reasoning drawn from some of the natural sciences, and suggests that future research into the question of war be aimed to develop such causal theory. Without some such vision of integrative reasoning, this analysis implies, the correlational project is unlikely to transcend its current state of empirical fragmentation. CR  - Copyright &#169; 1991 The International Studies Association},
}

@Article{Baumgartner2015SMR,
  author   = {Baumgartner, Michael and Thiem, Alrik},
  title    = {Model Ambiguities in Configurational Comparative Research},
  journal  = {Sociological Methods {\&} Research},
  year     = {2015},
  abstract = {For many years, sociologists, political scientists, and management scholars have readily relied on Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) for the purpose of configurational causal modeling. However, this article reveals that a severe problem in the application of QCA has gone unnoticed so far: model ambiguities. These arise when multiple causal models fare equally well in accounting for configurational data. Mainly due to the uncritical import of an algorithm that is unsuitable for causal modeling, researchers have typically been unaware of the whole model space. As a result, there exists an indeterminable risk for practically all QCA studies published in the last quarter century to have presented findings that their data did not warrant. Using hypothetical data, we first identify the algorithmic source of ambiguities and discuss to what extent they affect different methodological aspects of QCA. By reanalyzing a published QCA study from rural sociology, we then show that model ambiguities are not a mere theoretical possibility but a reality in applied research, which can assume such extreme proportions that no causal conclusions whatsoever are possible. Finally, the prevalence of model ambiguities is examined by performing a comprehensive analysis of 192 truth tables across 28 QCA studies published in applied sociology. In conclusion, we urge that future QCA practice ensures full transparency with respect to model ambiguities, both by informing readers of QCA-based research about their extent and by employing algorithms capable of revealing them.},
}

@Article{Vis2009EJPR,
  author   = {Vis, Barbara},
  title    = {Governments and unpopular social policy reform: {Biting} the bullet or steering clear?},
  journal  = {European Journal of Political Research},
  year     = {2009},
  volume   = {48},
  number   = {1},
  pages    = {31-57},
  abstract = {Under which conditions and to what extent do governments pursue unpopular social policy reforms for which they might be punished in the next election? This article shows that there exists substantial cross-cabinet variation in the degree to which governments take unpopular measures and argues that current studies cannot adequately explain this variation. Using insights from prospect theory, a psychological theory of choice under risk, this study hypothesises that governments only engage in unpopular reform if they face a deteriorating socio-economic situation, a falling political position, or both. If not, they shy away from the risk of reform. A fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA) of the social policy reform activities pursued by German, Dutch, Danish and British cabinets between 1979 and 2005 identifies a deteriorating socio-economic situation as necessary for unpopular reform. It is only sufficient for triggering reform, however, if the political position is also deteriorating and/or the cabinet is of rightist composition. This study's findings further the scholarly debate on the politics of welfare state reform by offering a micro-foundation that helps one to understand what induces political actors aspiring to be re-elected to engage in electorally risky unpopular reform.},
}

@Article{Thomann2015JEPP,
  author   = {Thomann, Eva},
  title    = {Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation},
  journal  = {Journal of European Public Policy},
  year     = {2015},
  volume   = {22},
  number   = {10},
  pages    = {1368-1387},
  abstract = {ABSTRACTEuropean Union (EU) implementation research has neglected situations when member states go beyond the minimum requirements prescribed in EU directives (gold-plating). The top?down focus on compliance insufficiently accounts for the fact that positive integration actually allows member states to transcend the EU's requirements to facilitate context-sensitive problem-solving. This study adopts a bottom?up implementation perspective. Moving beyond compliance, it introduces the concept of ?customization? to depict how transposition results in tailor-made solutions in a multilevel system. The study analyses the hitherto unexplored veterinary drug regulations of four member states. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and formal theory evaluation, this article assesses how policy and country-level factors interact. Results reveal the countries? different customization styles. The latter simultaneously reflect the interplay of domestic politics with institutions, and the ?fit? of EU regulatory modes with domestic, sectoral interventionist styles. Compliance approaches cannot fully explain these fine-grained patterns of Europeanization.},
}

@Article{Hackett2015IJSRM,
  author   = {Hackett, Ursula},
  title    = {The {Goldilocks} principle: {Applying} the exclusive disjunction to fuzzy sets},
  journal  = {International Journal of Social Research Methodology},
  year     = {2015},
  pages    = {1-24},
  abstract = {Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), a technique by which the tools of Boolean algebra are applied to equifinal causal conditions, is gaining popularity amongst scholars. This paper draws upon a distinction largely overlooked by the QCA literature: the difference between inclusive- and exclusive-or (OR and XOR). I argue that XOR should be included amongst the tools of QCA, explain why XOR is more easily applied to crisp- than fuzzy-set QCA, and provide two original techniques for applying XOR to fuzzy sets: mechanical and calibrated. With the calibrated technique, the application of the exclusive-or is related to substantive knowledge of the cases with two threshold values: (1) how large two fuzzy set values need to be in order to violate a prior commitment or overshoot a target outcome, and (2) how similar two values need to be in order to violate the rule: ?A or B, but not both?. This paper improves the capacity of QCA expressions to mirror natural language closely, formalize conversational implicature, and deal with mutually exclusive clusters of sufficiency conditions. It includes a helpful step-by-step guide for QCA practitioners.},
}

@Article{Fearon1991WP,
  author   = {Fearon, James D.},
  title    = {Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science},
  journal  = {World Politics},
  year     = {1991},
  volume   = {43},
  number   = {2},
  pages    = {169-195},
  abstract = {Scholars in comparative politics and international relations routinely evaluate causal hypotheses by referring to counterfactual cases where a hypothesized causal factor is supposed to have been absent. The methodological status and the viability of this very common procedure are unclear and are worth examining. How does the strategy of counterfactual argument relate, if at all, to methods of hypothesis testing based on the comparison of actual cases, such as regression analysis or Mill's Method of Difference? Are counterfactual thought experiments a viable means of assessing hypotheses about national and international outcomes, or are they methodologically invalid in principle? The paper addresses the first question in some detail and begins discussion of the second. Examples from work on the causes of World War I, the nonoccurrence of World War III, social revolutions, the breakdown of democratic regimes in Latin America, and the origins of fascism and corporatism in Europe illustrate the use, problems and potential of counterfactual argument in small-N-oriented political science research. CR  - Copyright &#169; 1991 The Johns Hopkins University Press},
}

@Book{Paul2013book,
  title     = {Causation: A User's Guide},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  year      = {2013},
  author    = {Paul, L. A. and Hall, Ned},
  address   = {Oxford},
}


@Book{xie2015,
	title = {Dynamic Documents with {R} and knitr},
	author = {Yihui Xie},
	publisher = {Chapman and Hall/CRC},
	address = {Boca Raton, Florida},
	year = {2015},
	edition = {2nd},
	note = {ISBN 978-1498716963},
	url = {http://yihui.name/knitr/},
}



@Comment{jabref-meta: databaseType:bibtex;}
